Lung SBRT: dosimetric and delivery comparison of RapidArc, TomoTherapy, and IMRT

This study seeks to compare fixed‐field intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (FF IMRT), RapidArc (RA), and helical tomotherapy (HT) to discover the optimal treatment modality to deliver SBRT to the peripheral lung. Eight patients with peripheral primary lung cancer were reviewed. Plans were prescribed a dose of 48 Gy and optimized similarly with heterogeneity corrections. Plan quality was assessed using conformality index ([Formula: see text]), homogeneity index (HI), the ratio of the 50% isodose volume to PTV ([Formula: see text]) to assess intermediate dose spillage, and normal tissue constraints. Delivery efficiency was evaluated using treatment time and MUs. Dosimetric accuracy was assessed using gamma index (3% dose difference, 3 mm DTA, 10% threshold), and measured with a PTW ARRAY seven29 and OCTAVIUS phantom. [Formula: see text] , and [Formula: see text] were lowest for HT compared to seven‐field coplanar IMRT and two‐arc coplanar RA ([Formula: see text]). Normal tissue constraints were met for all modalities, except maximum rib dose due to close proximity to the PTV. RA reduced delivery time by 60% compared to HT, and 40% when compared to FF IMRT. RA also reduced the mean MUs by 77% when compared to HT, and by 22% compared to FF IMRT. All modalities can be delivered accurately, with mean QA pass rates over 97%. For peripheral lung SBRT treatments, HT performed better dosimetrically, reducing maximum rib dose, as well as improving dose conformity and uniformity. RA and FF IMRT plan quality was equivalent to HT for patients with minimal or no overlap of the PTV with the chest wall, but was reduced for patients with a larger overlap. RA and IMRT were equivalent, but the reduced treatment times of RA make it a more efficient modality. PACS numbers: 87.53.Ly87.55.N‐, 87.55.D‐, 87.56.bd