Treatment plan comparison of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy to intensity‐modulated radiotherapy in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy using either 6‐ or 10‐MV photon energies. Issue 8 (9th July 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wei, Zhigong; Peng, Xingchen; He, Ling; Wang, Jingjing; Liu, Zheran; Xiao, Jianghong
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 23:Issue 8(2022)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2022-07-09
• Subjects: intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) -- lung cancer -- radiotherapy -- stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) -- volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT); Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13714
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: The aim of this study was to dosimetrically compare volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques using either 6‐ or 10‐MV photon beam energies in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) plans. Methods: Thirty patients with primary or metastatic lung tumors eligible for SBRT were randomly selected. VMAT and IMRT treatment plans using either 6‐ or 10‐MV photon energies were generated through automatic SBRT planning software in the RayStation treatment planning system. Results: For planning target volume, there was no difference in D 95% for all plans, whereas D 2% and D 50% were significantly increased by 5.22%–5.98% and 2.47%–2.59%, respectively, using VMAT6/10‐MV plans compared to IMRT6/10‐MV plans. When comparing the D max of organs at risk (OARs), VMAT6/10‐MV was 18.32%–47.95% lower than IMRT6/10‐MV for almost all OARs. VMAT6/10‐MV obviously decreased D mean, V 5Gy, V 10Gy, and V 20Gy of whole lung by 9.68%–20.92% than IMRT6/10‐MV . Similar results were found when comparing VMAT6‐MV with IMRT10‐MV or VMAT10‐MV with IMRT6‐MV . The differences in the D 2%, heterogeneity index, and conformity index between 6‐ and 10‐MV plans are not statistically significant. Plans using 6‐MV performed 4.68%–8.91% lower levels of D max of spinal cord, esophagus, great vessels, and trachea and proximal bronchial tree than those using 10‐MV plans. Similarly, D mean, V 5Gy, V 10Gy, and V 20Gy of whole lung were also reduced by 2.79%–5.25% using 6‐MV. For dose fall‐off analysis, the D 2cm and R 50% of VMAT6/10‐MV were lower than those of IMRT6/10‐MV . Dose fall‐off curve based on 10 rings was steeper for VMAT plans than IMRT plans regardless of the energy used. Conclusions: For lung SBRT plans, VMAT‐based plans significantly reduced OARs dose and steepened dose fall‐off curves compared to IMRT‐based plans. A 6‐MV energy level was a better choice than 10‐MV for lung SBRT. In addition, the dose differences between different techniques were more obvious than those between different energy levels.