This study aimed to determine the suitable breast treatment technique for a small facility’s hospital with limited staff and equipment resources. The benefits and drawbacks of each technique should be considered to guide radiation oncologists choose the appropriate treatment option for postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) patients.

This study included the computed tomography images of 15 patients who received left-sided PMRT. The patient’s characteristics were classified into two groups: 1. irradiation of only the chest wall (CW) and 2. CW lymph nodes plus supraclavicular lymph nodes (SPCs). All 15 PMRT patients were generated in 4 treatment techniques including 3DCRT, field-in-field (FiF), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and hybrid (3DCRT + IMRT). Each treatment technique’s dosimetric parameters and treatment time were compared.

All four treatment plans met the acceptable criteria. The IMRT plans achieved the highest plan quality scores for two groups of PMRT patients but require the longest treatment time, whereas the 3DCRT and FiF plans demonstrated superiority for organ at risk (OAR) sparing and required the shortest treatment time when compared with the IMRT and hybrid plans.

The IMRT plan had the highest plan quality but required the most time to treat. Treatment times are critical in facilities with limited resources. As a result, the FiF plan was found to be a suitable technique for both CW-only and CW plus SPC irradiation due to its short treatment time and high plan quality scores for OAR dose sparing.

To limit the entrance dose to normal tissue and achieve the appropriate treatment time (TT) by using three different virtual structures with directional blocks for left-sided post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) with regional nodal irradiation (RNI).

Ten breast cancer patients who received PMRT by helical tomotherapy were enrolled. Three virtual structures were created for each patient: Organ-based, L-shaped (LB) and C-shaped (CB). The dose to the target and organ at risk (OARs), TT, the volume which received dose 5 Gy (V5Gy), integral dose (ID) and block structure contouring workload (BSCW) of the three virtual block techniques were evaluated. The performance scores were used to explore the suitable technique.

The CB plans showed a significantly better V5Gy, ID and contralateral breast-sparing. However, the CB plans revealed the longest TT and BSCW (p < 0·001). Contrary to the LB, the LB plans showed a significantly reduced TT and BSCW and provided the balance of plan efficiency with the highest score.

The LB technique is considered to be the suitable technique for left-sided PMRT with RNI and provided the advantage of TT, V5Gy, ID and BSCW while maintaining acceptable criteria for the target and OARs.

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

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.

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.

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.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), an extension of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), employs modifications in gantry rotation speed, machine dose rate and multi-leaf collimator motion to deliver a three-dimensional dose distribution. This study compared VMAT to IMRT for patients with anal carcinoma.

Sixteen patients previously treated with IMRT were retrospectively selected. Each patient received a total dose of 57·6–63·0 Gy in 1·8 Gy fractions. A single- or double-isocenter multi-arc VMAT treatment plan was generated using Eclipse RapidArc system with the same computed tomography image sets and optimisation constraints used for IMRT. Dose–volume histograms (DVHs) for planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs), and monitor units (MUs) and beam on times (BOTs) were used for comparison.

IMRT and VMAT plans showed insignificant differences in PTV homogeneity and conformity and sparing hips and bowel. VMAT required fewer mean MU and shorter BOT per plan (1,597 MU, 2·66 min) compared to IMRT (2,571 MU, 4·29 min) with p < 0·0001.

Fewer MU and shorter BOT for VMAT may decrease the damage from secondary radiation and treatment delivery uncertainty due to intra-fraction tumour motion, leading to higher machine throughput and improving patient comfort, with less treatment time.