A Novel Mixed Radiation Therapy Technique for Sinonasal Cancer: Dosimetric Study to Determine the Best Plan
M. Liu,H. Wang,B. Liu,W. Xia,Y. Gao,W. Shi,L. Dong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.06.2267
2017-01-01
Abstract:Radiotherapy (RT) is essential for malignancies of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses (sinonasal cancer [SNC]). However, RT plan is challenging for high prescribed dose and close proximity of critical structures. Here, we developed a novel mixed RT (MRT) plan consisting of one 3D-CRT and two-arc VMAT fields and compared the dose distribution of target volumes, protection of normal organs at risk (OAR) and monitor unit (MU) of four radiotherapy techniques (MRT, non-coplanar IMRT, coplanar and non-coplanar VMAT[cVMAT, ncVMAT]). Thirteen patients were enrolled. The four RT plans mentioned above were designed for each patient with 6MV X-ray. The prescribed dose was 59.4Gy/33f/1.8Gy to PTV concurrent with 69.96Gy/33f/2.12Gy to PGTV. The target volume coverage indicators included conformity and homogeneity index (CI, HI), D1% and D99%. OARs included the lens, brainstem, optic nerves and chiasm. All the optimized parameters and target values for plans were consistent. MRT provided improved conformity (0.825±0.041) and homogeneity (1.066±0.015) of PGTV than IMRT (CI= 0.793±0.042, HI= 1.117±0.018, p<0.05), cVMAT (CI= 0.820±0.037, HI= 1.071±0.031, p<0.05), and ncVMAT (CI= 0.801±0.050, HI= 1.098±0.026, p<0.05). The dose unit was cGy. MRT also reduced D1% of PGTV significantly (7470.5±113.6) compared with IMRT (7635.7±189.8,p<0.01), cVMAT (7571.0±109.4,p<0.05) and ncVMAT (7697.7±200.1,p<0.01). MRT increased D99% of PGTV remarkably (6529.7±108.4) compared with IMRT (6347.6±175.2,p<0.01), cVMAT (6507.5±111.9,p<0.05) and ncVMAT (6267.3±156.7,p<0.01). MRT has a significantly better CI (0.807±0.039) and reduced D1% (7436.1±112.3) of PTV compared with IMRT (0.766±0.055, 7598.5±167.9, p<0.01), cVMAT (0.789±0.045, 7507.7±107.8, p<0.05) and ncVMAT (0.771±0.049, 7632.8±184.7, p<0.01) respectively. Furthermore, MRT improved dose sparing of lens (D1%= 633.9±47.1) compared with IMRT (723.1±68.7,p<0.01), cVMAT (686.0±30.4, p<0.01) and ncVMAT (721.7±57.9,p<0.01). MRT reduced optic nerves dose (D1%= 4547.5±678.3) compared with IMRT (5434.0±372.3,p<0.01), cVMAT (4683.8±569.4,p<0.05) and ncVMAT (4666.5±501.2, p<0.05;) However, the dose of brain stem was increased in MRT (D1%=4117.9±159.1) but kept in the nomal threshold compared with IMRT (3114.5±201.3,p<0.01), cVMAT (2735.2±253.1, p<0.01) and ncVMAT (2872.0±192.2,p<0.01). Additionally, MRT increased optic chiasm dose (D1%=4831.9±231.2) compared with IMRT (3828.6±307.8, p<0.01), cVMAT (4628.2±221.4, p<0.01) and ncVMAT (3889.6±183.5, p<0.01). MRT greatly reduced MU (376.2±23.7) compared with IMRT (895.3±59.4, p<0.01), cVMAT (403.9±28.6,p<0.05) and ncVMAT (398.0±20.3,p<0.05). MRT is superior to IMRT or VMAT for SNC for better target coverage and protection of lens and optic nerves, reduced MU. The dose of brain stem and optic chiasm is slightly increased but kept in the nomal threshold. MRT is a good option for SNC.