Abstract: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. (C) 2012 Baishideng. All rights reserved.

Comparing Treatment Plan in All Locations of Esophageal Cancer

Volumetric and Dosimetric Variations in Radiation Treatment Planning Using CT Images Based on Different Reconstructed Field-of-view

A dosimetric comparison of the tangential beams IMRT with multifield beams IMRT of the chest wall in postmastectomy breast cancer recurrent patients

Volumetric-modulated Arc Therapy Vs. C-Imrt in Esophageal Cancer: a Treatment Planning Comparison.

Dosimetric comparison of magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy, intensity-modulated proton therapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for distal esophageal cancer

Analysis of Dosimetric Results of Postoperative Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Using Single-Energy or Mixed-Energy Photons in Invasive Thymoma Patients

Comparing Dosimetry of Heart and Left Anterior Descending Artery Exposure in Carcinoma Esophagus Patients: Volumetric Arc Therapy Versus Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy

Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy and volume-modulated arc therapy for upper thoracic esophageal carcinoma

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

A dosimetery study on different irradiation technique for esophageal carcinoma by 3 dimensional treatment planning system(3D-TPS)

Comparison of conventional and conformal radiotherapy and different irradiation technique by 3D-TPS for esophageal carcinoma: a dosimetric study

Different functional lung-sparing strategies and radiotherapy techniques for patients with esophageal cancer

Dosimetric Comparisons of VMAT, IMRT and 3DCRT for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer with Simultaneous Integrated Boost.

Different Radiation Treatment in Esophageal Carcinoma: a Clinical Comparative Study.

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

Dosimetric Comparison of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy, Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Hybrid Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy/Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Techniques for Right Breast Cancer

Comparison of three Radiotherapy Techniques Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy with Variable and Constant Dose Rate and Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for the Irradiation of Five Cancer Sites

Investigation of Predictors to Achieve Acceptable Lung Dose in T-Shaped Upper and Middle Esophageal Cancer with IMRT and VMAT.

SU-E-T-810: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Conventional Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with Simultaneously Integrated Boost Radiation Therapy: A Planning Comparison Study

Planning evaluation of a novel volume-based algorithm for personalized optimization of lung dose in VMAT for esophageal cancer

Dosimetric Comparison Between Conventional and Three Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy for Esophageal Carcinoma