Small‐spot intensity‐modulated proton therapy and volumetric‐modulated arc therapies for patients with locally advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer: A dosimetric comparative study

PURPOSE: To compare dosimetric performance of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and small‐spot intensity‐modulated proton therapy for stage III non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 24 NSCLC patients were retrospectively reviewed; 12 patients received intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and the remaining 12 received VMAT. Both plans were generated by delivering prescription doses to clinical target volumes (CTV) on averaged 4D‐CTs. The dose‐volume‐histograms (DVH) band method was used to quantify plan robustness. Software was developed to evaluate interplay effects with randomized starting phases of each field per fraction. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: Compared with VMAT, IMPT delivered significantly lower cord D(max), heart D(mean), and lung V(5 Gy[) (RBE) (]) with comparable CTV dose homogeneity, and protection of other OARs. In terms of plan robustness, the IMPT plans were statistically better than VMAT plans in heart D(mean), but were statistically worse in CTV dose coverage, cord D(max), lung D(mean), and V(5 Gy[) (RBE) (]). Other DVH indices were comparable. The IMPT plans still met the standard clinical requirements with interplay effects considered. CONCLUSIONS: Small‐spot IMPT improves cord, heart, and lung sparing compared to VMAT and achieves clinically acceptable plan robustness at least for the patients included in this study with motion amplitude less than 11 mm. Our study supports the usage of IMPT to treat some lung cancer patients.