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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Panet‐Raymond, Valerie, Ansbacher, Will, Zavgorodni, Sergei, Bendorffe, Bill, Nichol, Alan, Truong, Pauline T., Beckham, Wayne, Vlachaki, Maria
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