A dosimetric comparison of non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy and non-coplanar fixed field intensity modulated radiation therapy in hippocampus-avoidance whole-brain radiation therapy with a simultaneous integrated boost for brain metastases.
{"title":"A dosimetric comparison of non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy and non-coplanar fixed field intensity modulated radiation therapy in hippocampus-avoidance whole-brain radiation therapy with a simultaneous integrated boost for brain metastases.","authors":"Huaqu Zeng, MinZhi Zhong, Zongyou Chen, Shukui Tang, Zunbei Wen","doi":"10.3389/fonc.2024.1428329","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to investigate the dosimetric differences between non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and non-coplanar fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in hippocampus-avoidance whole-brain radiation therapy with a simultaneous integrated boost (HA-WBRT+SIB) for brain metastases using the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A total of 22 patients with brain metastases were retrospectively enrolled. Two radiotherapy treatment plans were designed for each patient: non-coplanar VMAT and non-coplanar fixed field IMRT. The dose distribution of targets and organs at risk (OAR), the number of monitor units (MUs), and pre-treatment plan verification were compared between the two plans while meeting the prescribed dose requirements of the target volume.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences in V<sub>50</sub>, V<sub>55</sub>, D<sub>max</sub>, heterogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of target PGTV between the two plans (<i>p</i>>0.05). For PTV-brain-SIB, there was no significant difference in D<sub>98%</sub> between IMRT and VMAT (<i>p</i>=0.103). VMAT significantly improved the V<sub>30</sub> of PTV-brain-SIB (<i>p</i><0.001), decreased HI (<i>p</i>=0.003), and increased CI (<i>p</i><0.001). There were no significant differences in the D<sub>max</sub> to the brain stem, left and right lens, optic chiasm, pituitary gland, and left and right hippocampus between the two plans (<i>p</i>>0.05). Compared with IMRT, VMAT significantly reduced the D<sub>max</sub> to the left and right eyes (<i>p</i><0.001) and significantly increased the D<sub>max</sub> to the right inner ear (<i>p</i>=0.010). There was no significant difference in the D<sub>max</sub> to the left inner ear between VMAT and IMRT (<i>p</i>=0.458). Compared with IMRT, VMAT significantly reduced the D<sub>max</sub> to the left optic nerve (<i>p</i>=0.006), but significantly increased the D<sub>max</sub> to the right optic nerve (<i>p</i>=0.001). There was no significant difference in the D<sub>max</sub> to the left and right hippocampus between VMAT and IMRT (<i>p</i>>0.05), but VMAT significantly increased the D<sub>100%</sub> (<i>p</i><0.05) compared with IMRT. Compared with VMAT, IMRT significantly reduced the MU (<i>p</i><0.001) but VMAT has a higher treatment efficiency than IMRT, with an average reduction of 41 seconds (294.1 ± 16.4 s for VMAT, 335.8 ± 34.9 s for IMRT, <i>p</i><0.001). Under the conditions of 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm, the gamma passing rate of the IMRT QA was improved compared to VMAT, with an average increase of 0.6%, <i>p</i>=0.013, and 1.7%, <i>p</i><0.001, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both non-coplanar VMAT and non-coplanar fixed field IMRT based on the Monaco TPS produce clinically acceptable results for HA-WBRT+SIB in patients with brain metastases. Compared with IMRT, VMAT has better dose distribution in the target volume and treatment efficiency, but IMRT can better protect the hippocampus and reduce the number of MUs.</p>","PeriodicalId":12482,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Oncology","volume":"14 ","pages":"1428329"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11799273/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1428329","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the dosimetric differences between non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and non-coplanar fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in hippocampus-avoidance whole-brain radiation therapy with a simultaneous integrated boost (HA-WBRT+SIB) for brain metastases using the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS).
Method: A total of 22 patients with brain metastases were retrospectively enrolled. Two radiotherapy treatment plans were designed for each patient: non-coplanar VMAT and non-coplanar fixed field IMRT. The dose distribution of targets and organs at risk (OAR), the number of monitor units (MUs), and pre-treatment plan verification were compared between the two plans while meeting the prescribed dose requirements of the target volume.
Results: There were no significant differences in V50, V55, Dmax, heterogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of target PGTV between the two plans (p>0.05). For PTV-brain-SIB, there was no significant difference in D98% between IMRT and VMAT (p=0.103). VMAT significantly improved the V30 of PTV-brain-SIB (p<0.001), decreased HI (p=0.003), and increased CI (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in the Dmax to the brain stem, left and right lens, optic chiasm, pituitary gland, and left and right hippocampus between the two plans (p>0.05). Compared with IMRT, VMAT significantly reduced the Dmax to the left and right eyes (p<0.001) and significantly increased the Dmax to the right inner ear (p=0.010). There was no significant difference in the Dmax to the left inner ear between VMAT and IMRT (p=0.458). Compared with IMRT, VMAT significantly reduced the Dmax to the left optic nerve (p=0.006), but significantly increased the Dmax to the right optic nerve (p=0.001). There was no significant difference in the Dmax to the left and right hippocampus between VMAT and IMRT (p>0.05), but VMAT significantly increased the D100% (p<0.05) compared with IMRT. Compared with VMAT, IMRT significantly reduced the MU (p<0.001) but VMAT has a higher treatment efficiency than IMRT, with an average reduction of 41 seconds (294.1 ± 16.4 s for VMAT, 335.8 ± 34.9 s for IMRT, p<0.001). Under the conditions of 3%/2 mm, and 2%/2 mm, the gamma passing rate of the IMRT QA was improved compared to VMAT, with an average increase of 0.6%, p=0.013, and 1.7%, p<0.001, respectively.
Conclusion: Both non-coplanar VMAT and non-coplanar fixed field IMRT based on the Monaco TPS produce clinically acceptable results for HA-WBRT+SIB in patients with brain metastases. Compared with IMRT, VMAT has better dose distribution in the target volume and treatment efficiency, but IMRT can better protect the hippocampus and reduce the number of MUs.
期刊介绍：
Cancer Imaging and Diagnosis is dedicated to the publication of results from clinical and research studies applied to cancer diagnosis and treatment. The section aims to publish studies from the entire field of cancer imaging: results from routine use of clinical imaging in both radiology and nuclear medicine, results from clinical trials, experimental molecular imaging in humans and small animals, research on new contrast agents in CT, MRI, ultrasound, publication of new technical applications and processing algorithms to improve the standardization of quantitative imaging and image guided interventions for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
