Abstract:Purpose. To compare the dosimetric differences between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) in treating early T-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Method. Ten patients with early T-stage NPC who received tomotherapy using simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) strategies were replanned with VMAT (RapidArc of Varian, dual-arc). Dosimetric comparisons between the RapidArc plan and the HT plan included the following: (1) D98, homogeneity, and conformity of PTVs; (2) sparing of organs at risk (OARs); (3) delivery time and monitor units (MUs). Results. (1) Compared with RapidArc, HT achieved better dose conformity (CI of PGTVnx + nd: 0.861 versus 0.818, P = 0.004). (2) In terms of OAR protection, RapidArc exhibited significant superiority in sparing ipsilateral optic nerve (Dmax: 27.5Gy versus 49.1Gy, P < 0.001; D2: 23.5Gy versus 48.2Gy, P < 0.001), contralateral optic nerve (Dmax: 30.4Gy versus 49.2Gy, P < 0.001; D2: 26.2Gy versus 48.1Gy, P < 0.001), and optic chiasm (Dmax: 32.8Gy versus 48.3Gy, P < 0.001; D2: 30Gy versus 47.6Gy, P < 0.001). HT demonstrated a superior ability to protect the brain stem (D1cc: 43.0Gy versus 45.2Gy, P = 0.012), ipsilateral temporal lobe (Dmax 64.5Gy versus 66.4 Gy, P = 0.015), contralateral temporal lobe (Dmax: 62.8Gy versus 65.1Gy, P = 0.001), ipsilateral lens (Dmax: 4.27Gy versus 5.24Gy, P = 0.009; D2: 4.00Gy versus 5.05Gy, P = 0.002; Dmean: 2.99Gy versus 4.31Gy, P < 0.001), contralateral lens (Dmax: 4.25Gy versus 5.09Gy, P = 0.047; D2: 3.91Gy versus 4.92Gy, P = 0.005; Dmean: 2.91Gy versus 4.18Gy, P < 0.001), ipsilateral parotid (Dmean: 36.4Gy versus 41.1Gy, P = 0.002; V30Gy: 54.8% versus 70.4%, P = 0.009), and contralateral parotid (Dmean: 33.4Gy versus 39.1Gy, P < 0.001; V30Gy: 48.2% versus 67.3%, P = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences in spinal cord or pituitary protection between the RapidArc plan and the HT plan. (3) RapidArc achieved a much shorter delivery time (3.8 min versus 7.5 min, P < 0.001) and a lower MU (618MUs versus 5646MUs, P < 0.001). Conclusion. Our results show that Rapid Arc and HT are comparable in D98, dose homogeneity, and protection of the spinal cord and pituitary gland. RapidArc performs better in shortening delivery time, lowering MUs, and sparing the optic nerve and optic chiasm. HT is superior in dose conformity and protection of the brain stem, temporal lobe, lens, and parotid.

Which T Category Of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma May Benefit Most From Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Compared With Step And Shoot Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

Prospective Matched Study on Comparison of Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy and Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Dosimetry, Delivery Efficiency and Outcomes.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A dosimetric comparison with TomoTherapy and step-and-shoot IMRT

Comparison and evaluation of VMAT and IMRT for the treatment of initial treated nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Dosimetric Evaluation of Hippocampus Sparing Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Patients with Stage T1-T2 and Stage T3-T4 Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

Comparison of Dosimetric Benefits of Three Precise Radiotherapy Techniques in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Patients Using a Priority-Classified Plan Optimization Model

Toxicity and dosimetric analysis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients undergoing radiotherapy with IMRT or VMAT: A regional center's experience

Dosimetric Comparisons of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Tomotherapy for Early T-Stage Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Versus Tomotherapy for Late T-stage Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.

A detailed dosimetric comparative study of IMRT and VMAT in normal brain tissues for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with radiotherapy

Dosimetric Comparison of Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy Plans for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Using Flattening Filter-Free and Flattening Filter Modes

Clinical Outcomes of Volume-Modulated Arc Therapy in 205 Patients with Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: An Analysis of Survival and Treatment Toxicities.

Comparison of planning parameter selection for volumetric modulated arc therapy of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in two different treatment planning systems

A Hybrid IMRT/VMAT Technique for the Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Cancer

Comparison of Flattening Filter and Flattening Filter-Free Volumetric Modulated Arc Radiotherapy in Patients with Locally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.

Dosimetry comparison between volumetric modulated arc therapy with RapidArc and fixed field dynamic IMRT for local-regionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Advantages of Using Reduced-Volume Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for the Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: a Retrospective Paired Study.

Intensity-modulated carbon-ion radiation therapy versus intensity-modulated photon-based radiation therapy in locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a dosimetric comparison

Intensity modulated proton beam therapy versus volumetric modulated arc therapy for patients with nasopharyngeal cancer: a propensity score-matched study

Coplanar VMAT Vs. Noncoplanar VMAT in the Treatment of Sinonasal Cancer

Significant Reduction in Vertebral Artery Dose by Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy: A Pilot Study for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma