Is IMRT or VMAT superior or inferior to 3D conformal therapy in the treatment of lung cancer? A brief literature review

Evaluation of the conformity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy using AAPM TG 119 protocol

The aim of this work was to evaluate the conformity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and verify the accuracy of the planning and delivery system used in this work based on the AAPM TG-119 protocol. The Eclipse 13.6 treatment planning system (TPS) was used to plan the TG-119 test suite, which included four test cases: MultiTarget, Prostate, Head/Neck, and C-Shape for IMRT and VMAT techniques with 6 MV and 10 MV acceleration voltages. The results were assessed and discussed in terms of the TG-119 protocol and the results of previous studies. In addition, point dose and planar dose measurements were done using a semiflex ion chamber and an electronic portal imaging device (EPID), respectively. The planned doses of all test cases met the criteria of the TG-119 protocol, except those for the spinal cord of the C-Shape hard case. There were no significant differences between the treatment planning doses and the doses given in the TG-119 report, with p-values ranging from 0.974 to 1 (p > 0.05). Doses to the target volumes were similar in the IMRT and VMAT plans, but the organs at risk (OARs) doses were different depending on the test case. The planning results showed that IMRT is more conformal than VMAT in certain cases. For the point dose measurements, the confidence limit (CLpoint) of 0.030 and 0.021 were better than the corresponding values of 0.045 and 0.047 given in the TG-119 report for high-dose and low-dose areas, respectively. Regarding the planar dose measurements, the CLplanar value of 0.38 obtained in this work was lower than that given in the TG-119 report (12.4). It is concluded that the dosimetry measurements performed in this study showed better confidence limits than those provided in the TG 119 report. IMRT remains more conformal in certain circumstances than the more progressive VMAT. When selecting the method of delivering a dose to the patient, several factors must be considered, including the radiotherapy technique, energy, treatment site, and tumour geometry.

Dosimetric comparison of four-dimensional computed tomography based internal target volume against variations in respiratory motion during treatment between volumetric modulated arc therapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy

This study focused on the dosimetric impact of variations in respiratory motion during lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Dosimetric comparisons between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) were performed using four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT)-based internal target volumes (ITV). We created retrospective plans for ten patients with lung cancer who underwent SBRT using 3DCRT and VMAT techniques. A Delta4 Phantom + (ScandiDos, Uppsala, Sweden) was used to evaluate the dosimetric robustness of 4DCT-based ITV against variations in respiratory motion during treatment. We analyzed respiratory motion during treatment. Dose-volume histogram parameters were evaluated for the 95% dose (D95%) to the planning target volume (PTV) contoured on CT images obtained under free breathing. The correlations between patient respiratory parameters and dosimetric errors were also evaluated. In the phantom study, the average PTV D95% dose differences for all fractions were - 2.9 ± 4.4% (- 16.0 - 1.2%) and - 2.0 ± 2.8% (- 11.2 - 0.7%) for 3DCRT and VMAT, respectively. The average dose difference was < 3% for both 3DCRT and VMAT; however, in 5 out of 42 fractions in 3DCRT, the difference in PTV D95% was > 10%. Dosimetric errors were correlated with respiratory amplitude and velocity, and differences in respiratory amplitude between 4DCT and treatment days were the main factors causing dosimetric errors. The overall average dose error of the PTV D95% was small; however, both 3DCRT and VMAT cases exceeding 10% error were observed. Larger errors occurred with amplitude variation or baseline drift, indicating limited robustness of 4DCT-based ITV.

QUANTIFICATION OF 6D INTER-FRACTION TUMOUR LOCALISATION ERRORS IN TONGUE AND PROSTATE CANCER USING DAILY KV-CBCT FOR 1000 IMRT AND VMAT TREATMENT FRACTIONS

This study aimed to evaluate the 6D inter-fraction tumour localisation errors in 20 tongue and 20 prostate cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy. The patient tumour localisation errors in lateral, longitudinal and vertical translation axes and pitch, roll and yaw rotational axes were analysed by automatic image registration of daily pretreatment kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography (kV-CBCT) with planning CT in 1000 fractions. The overall mean error (M), systematic error (Σ), random error (σ) and planning target volume (PTV) margins were evaluated. The frequency distributions of setup errors were normally distributed about the mean except for pitch in the tongue and prostate. The overall 3D vector length ≥ 5 mm was 14.2 and 49.8% in the ca-tongue and ca-prostate, respectively. The frequency of rotational errors ≥1 degree was a maximum of 37 and 59.5%, respectively, in ca-tongue and ca-prostate. The M, Σ and σ for all translational and rotational axes decreased with increasing frequency of verification correction in ca-tongue and ca-prostate patients. Similarly, the PTV margin was reduced with no correction to alternate day correction from a maximum of 4.7 to 2.5 mm in ca-tongue and from a maximum of 8.6 to 4.7 mm in ca-prostate. The results emphasised the vital role of the higher frequency of kV-CBCT based setup correction in reducing M, Σ, σ and PTV margins in ca-tongue and ca-prostate patients.