Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:55:33.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dosimetric analysis and comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy for liver carcinoma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2020

Bing-Hao Chiang ,
Erich Schnell ,
Kerry Hibbitts ,
Terence Herman  and
Salahuddin Ahmad Open the ORCID record for Salahuddin Ahmad [Opens in a new window]
Bing-Hao Chiang
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Peggy & Charles Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
Erich Schnell
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Peggy & Charles Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
Kerry Hibbitts
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Peggy & Charles Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
Terence Herman
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Peggy & Charles Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
Salahuddin Ahmad*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Peggy & Charles Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Salahuddin Ahmad, Department of Radiation Oncology, Peggy & Charles Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, 800 NE 10th St, SCC L100, Oklahoma City, OK73104, USA. Tel: (405) 271-3016. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim:

This study dosimetrically compared volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMRT) for patients with liver carcinoma.

Materials and methods:

Ten patients with liver carcinoma previously treated with IMRT or VMAT were retrospectively selected for this study. Each patient received a total dose of 54 Gy in 1·8 Gy fractions. Dosimetric evaluations for each patient were performed using the dose–volume histograms (DVHs) for planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OAR). All dosimetric parameters were statistically analysed using mean values, standard deviations and p-values for determining the significance. The conformality index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) were calculated and compared. For efficiency evaluation, monitor units (MUs) and beam on times (BOT) were recorded.

Results:

Compared to IMRT, VMAT plans showed significant differences in the heterogeneity with p < 0·01 and insignificant differences in both conformality and normal tissue sparing. VMAT required marginally fewer mean MU and shorter BOT when compared to IMRT with insignificant differences.

Conclusions:

For radiation therapy treatment of liver carcinoma, IMRT and VMAT can achieve similar PTV coverage and normal tissue sparing. Treatment time is only marginally shorter with VMAT versus IMRT with insignificant differences.

Keywords

dosimetric comparisonIMRTliver carcinomatreatment timeVMAT
Type
Technical Note
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 138 - 140
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Siegel, RL, Miller, KD, Jemal, A. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2019; 69: 7–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazzaferro, V, Regalia, E, Doci, R et al. Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 693–700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ringe, B, Pichlmayr, R, Wittekind, C, Tusch, G. Surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: experience with liver resection and transplantation in 198 patients. World J Surg 1991; 15:270–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruix, J, Han, K-H, Gores, G, Llovet, J M, Mazzaferro, V. Liver cancer: approaching a personalized care. J Hepatol 2015; 62: S144–S156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lencioni, R, Crocetti, L. Radiofrequency ablation of liver cancer. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 2007; 10: 38–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y-X J, De Baere, T, Idée, J-M and Ballet, S. Transcatheter embolization therapy in liver cancer: an update of clinical evidences. Chin J Cancer 2015; 27: 96.Google ScholarPubMed
Kuo, Y-C, Chiu, Y-M, Shih, W-P et al. Volumetric intensity-modulated Arc (RapidArc) therapy for primary hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 3-D conformal radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol 2011; 6: 76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yin, Y, Ma, C, Gao, M et al. Dosimetric comparison of RapidArc with fixed gantry intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment for multiple liver metastases radiotherapy. Med Dosim 2011; 36: 448–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gong, G, Yin, Y, Xing, L et al. RapidArc combined with the active breathing coordinator provides an effective and accurate approach for the radiotherapy of hepatocellular carcinoma. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 2012; 188: 262–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, J M, Kim, K, Chie, E K, Choi, C, Ye, S-J, Ha, S. RapidArc® vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a comparative planning study. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: e323–e329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, D, Wang, R, Meng, X et al. A comparison of liver protection among 3-D conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and RapidArc for hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiat Oncol 2014; 9: 48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed