Cargando…

Assessing the role of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma

The role of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine the potential clinical role of VMAT compared with three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D CRT) for liver irradiation. Four‐dimensional CT scans...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xi, Mian, Zhang, Li, Li, Qiao‐Qiao, Zhao, Lei, Zhang, Rui, Liu, Meng‐Zhong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5714419/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23652248
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i3.4162
Descripción
Sumario:The role of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine the potential clinical role of VMAT compared with three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D CRT) for liver irradiation. Four‐dimensional CT scans of 24 patients with unresectable HCC were included and divided into two groups: (1) adjacent group ([Formula: see text]), with planning target volumes overlapping or within 1 cm adjacent to the alimentary tract; (2) nonadjacent group ([Formula: see text]), in which the normal liver itself was the dose‐limiting structure. Target coverage, organs‐at‐risk (OARs) doses, delivery parameters, and treatment accuracy were evaluated. Superior target coverage, conformity, and homogeneity were achieved with VMAT compared with 3D CRT. In the adjacent group, VMAT provided superior sparing of serial functioning OARs including the stomach, small intestine, and spinal cord. In the nonadjacent group, VMAT provided inferior sparing of most OARs including the liver, stomach, and small intestine. For the whole group, the effective treatment time was [Formula: see text] min for 3D CRT and [Formula: see text] min for VMAT. For liver lesions adjacent to the alimentary tract, this study indicates that VMAT should be selected due to the plan quality, delivery efficiency, and superior sparing of stomach and small intestine. However, for liver lesions away from the alimentary tract, VMAT is not superior to 3D CRT for normal tissue protection. PACS number: 87.55‐x.