Cargando…
Coplanar versus noncoplanar intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning for fronto‐temporal high‐grade glioma
The purpose of this study was to compare dosimetric and radiobiological parameters of treatment plans using coplanar and noncoplanar beam arrangements in patients with fronto‐temporal high‐grade glioma (HGG) generated for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (V...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5716518/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22766954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v13i4.3826 |
_version_ | 1783283961718374400 |
---|---|
author | Panet‐Raymond, Valerie Ansbacher, Will Zavgorodni, Sergei Bendorffe, Bill Nichol, Alan Truong, Pauline T. Beckham, Wayne Vlachaki, Maria |
author_facet | Panet‐Raymond, Valerie Ansbacher, Will Zavgorodni, Sergei Bendorffe, Bill Nichol, Alan Truong, Pauline T. Beckham, Wayne Vlachaki, Maria |
author_sort | Panet‐Raymond, Valerie |
collection | PubMed |
description | The purpose of this study was to compare dosimetric and radiobiological parameters of treatment plans using coplanar and noncoplanar beam arrangements in patients with fronto‐temporal high‐grade glioma (HGG) generated for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Ten cases of HGG overlapping the optic apparatus were selected. Four separate plans were created for each case: coplanar IMRT, noncoplanar IMRT (ncIMRT), VMAT, and noncoplanar VMAT (ncVMAT). The prescription dose was 60 Gy in 30 fractions. Dose‐volume histograms and equivalent uniform doses (EUD) for planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) were generated. The four techniques resulted in comparable mean, minimum, maximum PTV doses, and PTV EUDs ([Formula: see text]). The mean PTV dose and EUD averaged for all techniques were 59.98 Gy (Standard Deviation [Formula: see text]) and 59.86 Gy ([Formula: see text]). Noncoplanar IMRT significantly reduced contralateral anterior globe EUDs (6.7 Gy versus 8.2 Gy, [Formula: see text]), while both ncIMRT and ncVMAT reduced contralateral retina EUDs (16 Gy versus 18.8 Gy, [Formula: see text]). Noncoplanar techniques resulted in lower contralateral temporal lobe dose (22.2 Gy versus 24.7 Gy). Compared to IMRT, VMAT techniques required fewer monitor units (755 vs. 478, [Formula: see text]) but longer optimization times. Treatment delivery times were 6.1 and 10.5 minutes for coplanar and ncIMRT versus 2.9 and 5.0 minutes for coplanar and ncVMAT. In this study, all techniques achieved comparable target coverage. Superior sparing of contralateral optic structures was seen with ncIMRT. The VMAT techniques reduced treatment delivery duration but prolonged plan optimization times, compared to IMRT techniques. Technique selection should be individualized, based on patient‐specific clinical and dosimetric parameters. PACS number: 87 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5716518 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57165182018-04-02 Coplanar versus noncoplanar intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning for fronto‐temporal high‐grade glioma Panet‐Raymond, Valerie Ansbacher, Will Zavgorodni, Sergei Bendorffe, Bill Nichol, Alan Truong, Pauline T. Beckham, Wayne Vlachaki, Maria J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics The purpose of this study was to compare dosimetric and radiobiological parameters of treatment plans using coplanar and noncoplanar beam arrangements in patients with fronto‐temporal high‐grade glioma (HGG) generated for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Ten cases of HGG overlapping the optic apparatus were selected. Four separate plans were created for each case: coplanar IMRT, noncoplanar IMRT (ncIMRT), VMAT, and noncoplanar VMAT (ncVMAT). The prescription dose was 60 Gy in 30 fractions. Dose‐volume histograms and equivalent uniform doses (EUD) for planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) were generated. The four techniques resulted in comparable mean, minimum, maximum PTV doses, and PTV EUDs ([Formula: see text]). The mean PTV dose and EUD averaged for all techniques were 59.98 Gy (Standard Deviation [Formula: see text]) and 59.86 Gy ([Formula: see text]). Noncoplanar IMRT significantly reduced contralateral anterior globe EUDs (6.7 Gy versus 8.2 Gy, [Formula: see text]), while both ncIMRT and ncVMAT reduced contralateral retina EUDs (16 Gy versus 18.8 Gy, [Formula: see text]). Noncoplanar techniques resulted in lower contralateral temporal lobe dose (22.2 Gy versus 24.7 Gy). Compared to IMRT, VMAT techniques required fewer monitor units (755 vs. 478, [Formula: see text]) but longer optimization times. Treatment delivery times were 6.1 and 10.5 minutes for coplanar and ncIMRT versus 2.9 and 5.0 minutes for coplanar and ncVMAT. In this study, all techniques achieved comparable target coverage. Superior sparing of contralateral optic structures was seen with ncIMRT. The VMAT techniques reduced treatment delivery duration but prolonged plan optimization times, compared to IMRT techniques. Technique selection should be individualized, based on patient‐specific clinical and dosimetric parameters. PACS number: 87 John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2012-07-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5716518/ /pubmed/22766954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v13i4.3826 Text en © 2012 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Radiation Oncology Physics Panet‐Raymond, Valerie Ansbacher, Will Zavgorodni, Sergei Bendorffe, Bill Nichol, Alan Truong, Pauline T. Beckham, Wayne Vlachaki, Maria Coplanar versus noncoplanar intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning for fronto‐temporal high‐grade glioma |
title | Coplanar versus noncoplanar intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning for fronto‐temporal high‐grade glioma
|
title_full | Coplanar versus noncoplanar intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning for fronto‐temporal high‐grade glioma
|
title_fullStr | Coplanar versus noncoplanar intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning for fronto‐temporal high‐grade glioma
|
title_full_unstemmed | Coplanar versus noncoplanar intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning for fronto‐temporal high‐grade glioma
|
title_short | Coplanar versus noncoplanar intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning for fronto‐temporal high‐grade glioma
|
title_sort | coplanar versus noncoplanar intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (imrt) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (vmat) treatment planning for fronto‐temporal high‐grade glioma |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5716518/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22766954 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v13i4.3826 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT panetraymondvalerie coplanarversusnoncoplanarintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmattreatmentplanningforfrontotemporalhighgradeglioma AT ansbacherwill coplanarversusnoncoplanarintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmattreatmentplanningforfrontotemporalhighgradeglioma AT zavgorodnisergei coplanarversusnoncoplanarintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmattreatmentplanningforfrontotemporalhighgradeglioma AT bendorffebill coplanarversusnoncoplanarintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmattreatmentplanningforfrontotemporalhighgradeglioma AT nicholalan coplanarversusnoncoplanarintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmattreatmentplanningforfrontotemporalhighgradeglioma AT truongpaulinet coplanarversusnoncoplanarintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmattreatmentplanningforfrontotemporalhighgradeglioma AT beckhamwayne coplanarversusnoncoplanarintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmattreatmentplanningforfrontotemporalhighgradeglioma AT vlachakimaria coplanarversusnoncoplanarintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyimrtandvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyvmattreatmentplanningforfrontotemporalhighgradeglioma |