Comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy prostate cancer plans accounting for cold spots

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a dosimetric comparison of IMRT and VMAT using flattening filter and flattening filter-free beams

This retrospective study was performed to evaluate plan quality and treatment delivery parameters of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer. The study utilized different isocentric modulated techniques: intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using 6 MV flattening filter (FF) and 10 MV flattening filter-free beams (FFF). Fifteen retrospective prostate cancer patients were selected for this study. Sixty plans were created with an SBRT-prescribed dose of 36.25 Gy delivered in five fractions. Planning target volume (PTV) coverage, plan quality indices, doses delivered to organs at risk (OARs), and treatment delivery parameters were compared for all plans. It turned out that VMAT plans, particularly those using the FFF beam, provided superior target conformality and a steeper dose gradient as compared to IMRT plans. Additionally, VMAT plans showed better OARs sparing compared to IMRT plans. However, IMRT plans delivered a lower maximum dose to the target than VMAT plans. Importantly, the VMAT plans resulted in reduced treatment delivery parameters, including beam on time (BOT), monitor unit (MU), and modulation factor (MF), compared to IMRT plans. Furthermore, a statistically significant difference was observed in BOT and mean body dose between FF and FFF beams, with FFF beams showing superior performance. Considering all results, VMAT using 10 MV (FFF) is suggested for treating prostate cancer patients with SBRT. This offers the fastest delivery in addition to maintaining the highest plan quality.

Dosimetric comparison between intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy to enhance bladder and bowel

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men. Two common radiotherapy techniques, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT), are used for treatment. This study aimed to compare the two techniques for sparing the bladder and bowel. Computed tomography data from prostate cancer patients were analyzed to define the clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV). Treatment plans were generated with Monte Carlo algorithms, and dosimetric analysis was performed using the Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS). We compared IMRT and VMAT for prostate cancer PTV coverage (% Ref. Volume), with VMAT showing slightly better coverage (98.885±1.704) compared to IMRT (98.594±0.923). VMAT also demonstrated improved PTV conformity. Additionally, VMAT was superior in sparing the bladder (% V4500<40%), while IMRT performed better in bowel preservation (mean Ref. volume CC<195).

Comprehensive Comparison of Progressive Optimization Algorithm Based Automatic Plan and Manually Planned Treatment Technique for Cervical-Thoracic Esophageal Cancers

Purpose:

The purpose of the present study was first to apply the progressive optimization algorithm based automatic volumetric modulated arc therapy (POA-VMAT) technology to accelerate and improve the radiotherapy of cervicothoracic esophageal cancer (CTEC). We comprehensive analyze the feasibility, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and dosimetric results of POA-VMAT, manual based VMAT and step-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans in the treatment of CTEC.

Methods:

Sixty patients with CTEC with or without concomitant chemotherapy at our institution between 2017 and 2019 were retrospectively identified. The manual 7field-IMRT (7f-IMRT), Single-arc-VMAT and Double-arc-VMAT (Single-Arc/Double-Arc) plans were generated in all cases. The POA-VMAT was designed using the automatic dual-arc VMAT technology of Pinnacle³ 9.10 planning system based on progressive optimization algorithm. Specially, it includes the selection of treatment techniques, the running of automated planning scripts, and the evaluation of the final radiotherapy regimen. Subsequently, quantitative evaluation of plans was performed by means of standard dose–volume histograms, homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI).

Results:

Target dose conformity of the 7f-IMRT plan was inferior to all plans, whereas the Double-Arc plan was slightly inferior to the POA-VMAT but superior to the Single-Arc and 7f-IMRT plan. The HI for 7f-IMRT, Single-Arc, Double-Arc and POA-VMAT were 0.17 ± 0.08, 0.28 ± 0.06, 0.29 ± 0.06 and 0.28 ± 0.03, respectively. For the NTCP results, there was significant statistical difference among POA-VMAT, IMRT and VMAT plans. The total MU was reduced by 48.3% and 42.1% in Single-Arc and POA-VMAT plans compare to IMRT plans.

Conclusions:

By comprehensive consideration, POA-VMAT efficiently generate acceptable treatment plans for CTEC without dose escalation to OARs and overall superior to manual planning which is a good option for treating CTEC.