Applications of IMAT in cervical esophageal cancer radiotherapy: a comparison with fixed-field IMRT in dosimetry and implementation

Dose-volume comparison of intensity modulated proton therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for cervical esophageal cancer

Proton therapy for cervical esophageal cancer has many issues to be considered, such as the physiological curvature of the spine and the large range change from the neck to the trunk. We clarified the dosimetric characteristics of intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for cervical esophageal cancer by comparing with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Ten patients with cervical esophageal cancer were retrospectively planned for VMAT, 2-field IMPT (2F-IMPT), and 3-field IMPT (3F-IMPT). All plans were optimized to reach clinically acceptable levels. For planning target volume (PTV) coverage, 95% of the PTV should be covered by 95% of the prescription dose, unless the spinal cord limit is violated. The organs at risk included the lung, spinal cord, larynx, skin, and whole body. The prescription dose was 60 Gy relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in 30 fractions to the PTV. We compared the results according to dose-volume metrics. Significant dose reductions were achieved at lung doses, especially at low dose volumes of 20 Gy RBE or less in IMPT plans compared with VMAT plans (p < 0.05). Although the spinal cord PRV was below the tolerance level, the results were also significantly higher in VMAT plans than in IMPT plans (p < 0.001). Spinal cord PRV Dmean was significantly higher in 3F-IMPT than in 2F-IMPT (p < 0.001). In addition, it was confirmed that the integral whole body dose can be dramatically reduced in IMPT plans compared with VMAT plans. Both of 2F-IMPT and 3F-IMPT could effectively reduce spinal cord dose, as well as low integral whole body dose to a certain extent, while maintaining similar target coverage compared to VMAT. IMPT could be a promising treatment technique for patients with cervical esophageal cancer.

Comparison of nodal irradiation dose using radiotherapy for patients with thoracic esophageal cancer

The present study aimed to compare incidental nodal irradiation (INI) doses using volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), 5-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (5F-IMRT) and 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) treatment plans for patients with thoracic esophageal cancer (EC). A total of 15 patients with thoracic EC were selected for participation between October 2016 and July 2017 at the Hangzhou Cancer Hospital. Regional lymph nodal stations were contoured according to 3D CT-based images of the Japan Esophageal Society Guidelines. All patients were treated with 60 Gy using VMAT, 5F-IMRT and 3D-CRT plans. Dose-volume histograms of planning target volume (PTV), lung, heart, spinal cord and incidental nodal irradiation were compared between the three plans. 5F-IMRT was superior in PTV_V95% (the volume of the PTV receiving 95% of the prescription dose, P=0.003) and the VMAT plan was best in terms of conformal index (P=0.005). V20 and V30 were reduced by 10.7-22.6% (P=0.002) and 12.8-21% (P=0.026), respectively, in normal lung tissue using the VMAT plan. 5F-IMRT demonstrated the lowest maximum dose (Dmax) for the spinal cord (P=0.037). For the INI, 3D-CRT exhibited the highest equivalent uniform dose (EUD) values for 106pre (P=0.014) and 106tb-L (P=0.03) in upper-thoracic EC. The mean EUD of all lymph nodal regions in middle-thoracic EC were >40 Gy in VMAT and 5F-IMRT plans; the VMAT plan had higher EUD values in lower-thoracic EC compared with 5F-IMRT, 3D-CRT plans for INI. VMAT were comparable to the 5F-IMRT plan with respect to dosimetric characteristics for planning and INI doses to thoracic nodal levels NO 105-112 are considerable for thoracic EC.

Efficacy of virtual block objects in reducing the lung dose in helical tomotherapy planning for cervical oesophageal cancer: a planning study

Background

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy is useful for cervical oesophageal carcinoma (CEC); however, increasing low-dose exposure to the lung may lead to radiation pneumonitis. Nevertheless, an irradiation technique that avoids the lungs has never been examined due to the high difficulty of dose optimization. In this study, we examined the efficacy of helical tomotherapy that can restrict beamlets passing virtual blocks during dose optimization computing (block plan) in reducing the lung dose.

Methods

Fifteen patients with CEC were analysed. The primary/nodal lesion and prophylactic nodal region with adequate margins were defined as the planning target volume (PTV)-60 Gy and PTV-48 Gy, respectively. Nineteen plans per patient were made and compared (total: 285 plans), including non-block and block plans with several shapes and sizes.

Results

The most appropriate block model was semi-circular, 8 cm outside of the tracheal bifurcation, with a significantly lower lung dose compared to that of non-block plans; the mean lung volumes receiving 5 Gy, 10 Gy, 20 Gy, and the mean lung dose were 31.3% vs. 48.0% (p <  0.001), 22.4% vs. 39.4% (p <  0.001), 13.2% vs. 16.0% (p = 0.028), and 7.1 Gy vs. 9.6 Gy (p <  0.001), respectively. Both the block and non-block plans were comparable in terms of the homogeneity and conformity indexes of PTV-60 Gy: 0.05 vs. 0.04 (p = 0.100) and 0.82 vs. 0.85 (p = 0.616), respectively. The maximum dose of the spinal cord planning risk volume increased slightly (49.4 Gy vs. 47.9 Gy, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the mean doses to the heart and the thyroid gland. Prolongation of the delivery time was less than 1 min (5.6 min vs. 4.9 min, p = 0.010).

Conclusions

The block plan for CEC could significantly reduce the lung dose, with acceptable increment in the spinal dose and a slightly prolonged delivery time.

Comparison of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, and volumetric-modulated arc therapy in the treatment of cervical esophageal carcinoma

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and toxicities of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with cervical esophageal cancer. Specifically, we asked whether technological advances conferred an advantage with respect to the clinical curative effect. Seventy-eight patients with cervical esophageal cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy at our institution between 2007 and 2014 were enrolled in the study: 26 received 3DCRT, 30 were treated with IMRT, and 22 underwent VMAT. Kaplan-Meier analysis and the Cox proportional hazard model were used to analyze overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS). Treatment-related toxicity was also assessed. For all patients, the 2-year OS and FFS rates were 56.2 and 53.9%, respectively. The 2-year OS for the 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT groups was 53.6, 55.6, and 60.6%, respectively (P = 0.965). The corresponding 2-year FFS rates were 49.5, 56.7, and 60.1% (P = 0.998). A univariate analysis of the complete response to treatment showed an advantage of treatment modality with respect to OS (P < 0.001). The development of acute hematologic toxicity was not significantly different among the three groups. The survival rates of patients treated with IMRT and VMAT were comparable to the survival of patients administered 3DCRT, while lower lung mean dose, V20, maximum dose of brachial plexus and spinal cord. Grade 1 radiation pneumonitis occurred significantly less in patients treated with IMRT and VMAT than with 3DCRT (P = 0.011). A complete response was the most important prognostic factor of the patients with cervical esophageal cancer.

Cervical esophageal cancer: a gap in cancer knowledge

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of the diagnosis, treatment options and treatment-related complications of cervical esophageal carcinoma (CEC) and to subsequently provide recommendations to improve quality of care.

DESIGN

Studies were identified in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. A total of 107 publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included.

RESULTS

CEC is uncommon, accounting for 2%-10% of all esophageal carcinomas. These tumors are often locally advanced at presentation and have a poor prognosis, with a 5-year overall survival of 30%. Tobacco and alcohol consumption seem to be the major risk factors for developing CEC. Surgery is usually not possible due to the very close relationship to other organs such as the larynx, trachea and thyroid gland. Therefore, the current standard of care is definitive chemoradiation (dCRT) with curative intent. Treatment regimens used to treat CEC are adapted by established regimens in lower esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. However, dCRT may be accompanied by severe side-effects and complications. Several diagnostic and predictive markers have been studied, but currently, there is no other biomarker than clinical stage to determine patient management. Suggestions to improve patient outcomes are to determine the exact radiation dose needed for adequate locoregional control and to combine radiotherapy with optimal systemic therapy backbone.

CONCLUSION

CEC remains unchartered territory for many practising physicians and patients with CEC have a poor prognosis. To improve the outcome for CEC patients, future studies should focus on the identification of new diagnostic biomarkers or targets for radiosensitizers, amelioration of radiation schedules, optimal combination of chemotherapeutic agents and/or new therapeutic targets.

Double-arc volumetric modulated therapy improves dose distribution compared to static gantry IMRT and 3D conformal radiotherapy for adjuvant therapy of gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to compare the dose distributions of RapidArc (RA), static gantry intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) as adjuvant radiotherapy modalities for the treatment of gastric cancer.

METHODS

Fifteen patients with gastric cancer that underwent limited lymphadenectomy of perigastric lymph nodes were included in this study. Dosimetric values for a total dose of 45 Gy (1.8 Gy/day) were calculated for the RapidArc, IMRT, and 3DCRT modalities. The following parameters were compared: D99%, D1%, V95%, V107%, and conformity and homogeneity index values (CI and HI, respectively) for the planned target volume (PTV). Dose volume histogram (DVH) and dose distribution of the organs at risk (OAR), as the maximal dose to the spinal cord, V30 and V40 of the small bowel, and V20, V30 of liver and kidney were also assessed respectively.

RESULTS

RA, IMRT, and 3DCRT all achieved desirable PTV coverage. However, RA and IMRT significantly decreased D1% and V107%, and provided better CI and HI values compared with 3DCRT (P <0.05). Moreover, RA also achieved a significantly lower maximum dose for the spinal cord, liver V30, and kidney V20 compared to IMRT and 3DCRT; while the mean dose for these three organ types did not differ for the RA, IMRT, and 3DCRT plans.

CONCLUSIONS

Both RA and IMRT achieved favorable PTV coverage compared to 3DCRT. In addition, RA achieved better dosimetry than IMRT and 3DCRT, and provided better protection for the spinal cord, liver, and kidneys.

Dosimetric and efficiency comparison of high-dose radiotherapy for esophageal cancer: volumetric modulated arc therapy versus fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy

The aim of this study was to compare high-dose volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ff-IMRT) plans for the treatment of patients with middle-thoracic esophageal cancer. Eight patients with cT2-3N0M0 middle-thoracic esophageal cancer were enrolled. The treatment planning system was the version 9 of the Pinnacle(3) with SmartArc (Philips Healthcare, Fitchburg, WI, USA). VMAT and ff-IMRT treatment plans were generated for each case, and both techniques were used to deliver 50 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV(50)) and then provided a 16-Gy boost (PTV(66)). The VMAT plans provided superior PTV(66) coverage compared with the ff-IMRT plans (P = 0.034), whereas the ff-IMRT plans provided more appropriate dose homogeneity to the PTV(50) (P = 0.017). In the lung, the V(5) and V(10) were lower for the ff-IMRT plans than for the VMAT plans, whereas the V(20) was lower for the VMAT plans. The delivery time was significantly shorter for the VMAT plans than for the ff-IMRT plans (P = 0.012). In addition, the VMAT plans delivered fewer monitor units. The VMAT technique required a shorter planning time than the ff-IMRT technique (3.8 ± 0.8 hours vs. 5.4 ± 0.6 hours, P = 0.011). The major advantages of VMAT plans are higher efficiency and an approximately 50% reduction in delivery time compared with the ff-IMRT plans, with comparable plan quality. Further clinical investigations to evaluate the use of high-dose VMAT for the treatment of esophageal cancer are warranted.

Dosimetric benefits of IMRT and VMAT in the treatment of middle thoracic esophageal cancer: is the conformal radiotherapy still an alternative option?

The purpose of this study is to investigate the dosimetric differences among conformal radiotherapy (CRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and volumetric-modulated radiotherapy (VMAT) in the treatment of middle thoracic esophageal cancer, and determine the most appropriate treatment modality. IMRT and one-arc VMAT plans were generated for eight middle thoracic esophageal cancer patients treated previous with CRT. The planning target volume (PTV) coverage and protections on organs at risk of three planning schemes were compared. All plans have sufficient PTV coverage and no significant differences were observed, except for the conformity and homogeneity. The lung V5, V10, and V13 in CRT were 47.9% ± 6.1%, 36.5% ± 4.6%, and 33.2% ± 4.2%, respectively, which were greatly increased to 78.2% ± 13.7% (p < 0.01), 80.8% ± 14.9% (p < 0.01), 48.4% ± 8.2% (p = 0.05) in IMRT and 58.6% ± 10.5% (p = 0.03), 67.7% ± 14.0% (p < 0.01), and 53.0% ± 10.1% (p < 0.01) in VMAT, respectively. The lung V20 (p = 0.03) in VMAT and the V30 (p = 0.04) in IMRT were lower than those in CRT. Both IMRT and VMAT achieved a better protection on heart. However, the volumes of the healthy tissue outside of PTV irradiated by a low dose were higher for IMRT and VMAT. IMRT and VMAT also had a higher MU, optimization time, and delivery time compared to CRT. In conclusion, all CRT, IMRT, and VMAT plans are able to meet the prescription and there is no clear distinction on PTV coverage. IMRT and VMAT can only decrease the volume of lung and heart receiving a high dose, but at a cost of delivering low dose to more volume of lung and normal tissues. CRT is still a feasible option for middle thoracic esophageal cancer radiotherapy, especially for the cost-effective consideration.

Reduced lung dose during radiotherapy for thoracic esophageal carcinoma: VMAT combined with active breathing control for moderate DIBH

Background

Lung radiation injury is a critical complication of radiotherapy (RT) for thoracic esophageal carcinoma (EC). Therefore, the goal of this study was to investigate the feasibility and dosimetric effects of reducing the lung tissue irradiation dose during RT for thoracic EC by applying volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) combined with active breathing control (ABC) for moderate deep inspiration breath-hold (mDIBH).

Methods

Fifteen patients with thoracic EC were randomly selected to undergo two series of computed tomography (CT) simulation scans with ABC used to achieve mDIBH (representing 80% of peak DIBH value) versus free breathing (FB). Gross tumor volumes were contoured on different CT images, and planning target volumes (PTVs) were obtained using different margins. For PTV_-FB, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) was designed with seven fields, and VMAT included two whole arcs. For PTV_-DIBH, VMAT with three 135° arcs was applied, and the corresponding plans were named: IMRT_-FB, VMAT_-FB, and VMAT_-DIBH, respectively. Dosimetric differences between the different plans were compared.

Results

The heart volumes decreased by 19.85%, while total lung volume increased by 52.54% in mDIBH, compared to FB (p < 0.05). The mean conformality index values and homogeneity index values for VMAT_-DIBH (0.86, 1.07) were slightly worse than those for IMRT_-FB (0.90, 1.05) and VMAT_-FB (0.90, 1.06) (p > 0.05). Furthermore, compared to IMRT_-FB and VMAT_-FB, VMAT_-DIBH reduced the mean total lung dose by 18.64% and 17.84%, respectively (p < 0.05); moreover, the V₅, V₁₀, V₂₀, and V₃₀ values for IMRT_-FB and VMAT_-FB were reduced by 10.84% and 10.65% (p > 0.05), 12.5% and 20% (p < 0.05), 30.77% and 33.33% (p < 0.05), and 50.33% and 49.15% (p < 0.05), respectively. However, the heart dose-volume indices were similar between VMAT_-DIBH and VMAT_-FB which were lower than IMRT_-FB without being statistically significant (p > 0.05). The monitor units and treatment time of VMAT_-DIBH were also the lowest (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

VMAT combined with ABC to achieve mDIBH is a feasible approach for RT of thoracic EC. Furthermore, this method has the potential to effectively reduce lung dose in a shorter treatment time and with better targeting accuracy.

Volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs c-IMRT in esophageal cancer: A treatment planning comparison

AIM: To compare the volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans with conventional sliding window intensity-modulated radiotherapy (c-IMRT) plans in esophageal cancer (EC).

METHODS: Twenty patients with EC were selected, including 5 cases located in the cervical, the upper, the middle and the lower thorax, respectively. Five plans were generated with the eclipse planning system: three using c-IMRT with 5 fields (5F), 7 fields (7F) and 9 fields (9F), and two using VMAT with a single arc (1A) and double arcs (2A). The treatment plans were designed to deliver a dose of 60 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV) with the same constrains in a 2.0 Gy daily fraction, 5 d a week. Plans were normalized to 95% of the PTV that received 100% of the prescribed dose. We examined the dose-volume histogram parameters of PTV and the organs at risk (OAR) such as lungs, spinal cord and heart. Monitor units (MU) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of OAR were also reported.

RESULTS: Both c-IMRT and VMAT plans resulted in abundant dose coverage of PTV for EC of different locations. The dose conformity to PTV was improved as the number of field in c-IMRT or rotating arc in VMAT was increased. The doses to PTV and OAR in VMAT plans were not statistically different in comparison with c-IMRT plans, with the following exceptions: in cervical and upper thoracic EC, the conformity index (CI) was higher in VMAT (1A 0.78 and 2A 0.8) than in c-IMRT (5F 0.62, 7F 0.66 and 9F 0.73) and homogeneity was slightly better in c-IMRT (7F 1.09 and 9F 1.07) than in VMAT (1A 1.1 and 2A 1.09). Lung V30 was lower in VMAT (1A 12.52 and 2A 12.29) than in c-IMRT (7F 14.35 and 9F 14.81). The humeral head doses were significantly increased in VMAT as against c-IMRT. In the middle and lower thoracic EC, CI in VMAT (1A 0.76 and 2A 0.74) was higher than in c-IMRT (5F 0.63 Gy and 7F 0.67 Gy), and homogeneity was almost similar between VMAT and c-IMRT. V20 (2A 21.49 Gy vs 7F 24.59 Gy and 9F 24.16 Gy) and V30 (2A 9.73 Gy vs 5F 12.61 Gy, 7F 11.5 Gy and 9F 11.37 Gy) of lungs in VMAT were lower than in c-IMRT, but low doses to lungs (V5 and V10) were increased. V30 (1A 48.12 Gy vs 5F 59.2 Gy, 7F 58.59 Gy and 9F 57.2 Gy), V40 and V50 of heart in VMAT was lower than in c-IMRT. MUs in VMAT plans were significantly reduced in comparison with c-IMRT, maximum doses to the spinal cord and mean doses of lungs were similar between the two techniques. NTCP of spinal cord was 0 for all cases. NTCP of lungs and heart in VMAT were lower than in c-IMRT. The advantage of VMAT plan was enhanced by doubling the arc.

CONCLUSION: Compared with c-IMRT, VMAT, especially the 2A, slightly improves the OAR dose sparing, such as lungs and heart, and reduces NTCP and MU with a better PTV coverage.

3D-conformal RT, fixed-field IMRT and RapidArc, which one is better for esophageal carcinoma treated with elective nodal irradiation

The purpose of this study is to compare the characteristics of 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and RapidArc for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) treated with elective nodal irradiation (ENI). CT datasets of 20 patients with ESCC were included and plans for single and double arcs of RapidArc (RA1 and RA2), 7-field IMRT and 3D-CRT were created and optimized for each patient. The goal was to deliver 59.6 Gy to ≥95% of the planning target volume (40 Gy to electively irradiated lymph nodal regions) while meeting the same normal-tissue dose constraints. The plans were compared based on dosimetric characteristics of target and organs at risk (OARs), monitor units (MUs), and appraised beam-on time. Both RA2 and IMRT resulted in similar target coverage (V95%, 97.84±1.50% for RA2 versus 96.96±1.15% for IMRT), homogeneity index (HI, 0.11±0.02 for RA2 versus 0.10±0.01 for IMRT) and conformity index (CI, 0.81±0.03 for RA2 versus 0.79±0.04 for IMRT), which displayed slightly better than single arc (V95%=94.55±1.50%, HI=0.12±0.02, CI=0.80±0.02) and much better than 3D-CRT (V95%=91.17±2.89%, HI=0.15±0.03, CI=0.60±0.07). The total lung V20, V30 was reduced approximately from 31%, 16% (3D-CRT) to 22%, 13% (IMRT) and 20%, 12% (RA2); the heart V30, V40 from 29%, 21% (3D-CRT) to 28%, 20% (IMRT) and 27%, 18% (RA2). The maximum dose to the spinal cord was 44.26±2.60 Gy for 3D-CRT, 42.47±2.40 Gy for IMRT, and 42.79±1.81 Gy for RA2. The number of MUs per fraction reduced from 990±165 (IMRT) to 503±70 (3D-CRT) and 502±79 (RA2). Appraised beam-on time of RapidArc was 1.2-2.4 min, which was lower than IMRT with 5.4 min by average. RapidArc, especially for double arcs plan could provide slight improvements in OARs sparing and lower MUs without compromised target qualities compared with IMRT, which was much better than 3D-CRT for ESCC treated with ENI.