The application of multi-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy and fixed-field intensity modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of gynecologic cancer with large planning target volume.
Jia-Ling Song, Yi-Zhao Zhang, Zhi-Long Zhang, Zheng-Feng Fu, Peng-Fei Sun
{"title":"The application of multi-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy and fixed-field intensity modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of gynecologic cancer with large planning target volume.","authors":"Jia-Ling Song, Yi-Zhao Zhang, Zhi-Long Zhang, Zheng-Feng Fu, Peng-Fei Sun","doi":"10.1007/s13246-025-01538-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To investigate the dosimetry and delivery efficiency differences between multi-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and fixed-field intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the treatment of gynecological cancer with large planning target volume (PTV). Thirteen patients with gynecological cancer (9 cervical and 4 vulvar) with a PTV greater than 1600 cm<sup>3</sup> were retrospectively selected. Three-arc VMAT (3ARC) and seven-field IMRT plans were generated using identical objective functions from clinical two-arc VMAT (2ARC) plans to allow a rigorous comparison for each patient. Target coverage, OARs sparing, integral dose and delivery efficiency were compared through dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis. Compared with 2ARC plans, IMRT exhibited a slightly superior target coverage with higher D<sub>98%</sub>, CI and lower D<sub>2%</sub>, D<sub>50%</sub>, V<sub>110%</sub> and HI (P < 0.01). For OARs, IMRT produced lower V<sub>40Gy</sub> and D<sub>mean</sub> to the bladder and rectum (P < 0.01) and lower V<sub>40Gy</sub> to bone marrow than 2ARC (P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed for the colon, small bowel and femoral heads, while 2ARC performed worse at the low dose and integral dose to normal tissue (V<sub>5Gy</sub>, V<sub>10Gy</sub> and NTID, P < 0.01). Nevertheless, IMRT increased MUs by 1.65% and EDT by 107 s compared to 2ARC. Compared with 2ARC, 3ARC showed no improvement in target dose coverage, including D<sub>98%</sub>, D<sub>2%</sub>, D<sub>50%</sub>, V<sub>110%</sub>, CI and HI to PTV, but increased the doses to OARs (D<sub>mean</sub> to the bladder, rectum and bone marrow, V<sub>40Gy</sub> to the bone marrow and D<sub>5%</sub> to both the left and right femoral heads, P < 0.05), low dose and integral dose to normal tissue (V<sub>10Gy</sub>,V<sub>15Gy</sub>,V<sub>20Gy</sub> and NTID, P < 0.01) and simultaneously prolonged the EDT (P < 0.001). In the treatment of gynecological cancer with a large planning target volume, the IMRT technique can be delivered superior conformal dose to the target with somewhat better OARs sparing but increasing the estimated delivery time.</p>","PeriodicalId":48490,"journal":{"name":"Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-025-01538-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
To investigate the dosimetry and delivery efficiency differences between multi-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and fixed-field intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the treatment of gynecological cancer with large planning target volume (PTV). Thirteen patients with gynecological cancer (9 cervical and 4 vulvar) with a PTV greater than 1600 cm3 were retrospectively selected. Three-arc VMAT (3ARC) and seven-field IMRT plans were generated using identical objective functions from clinical two-arc VMAT (2ARC) plans to allow a rigorous comparison for each patient. Target coverage, OARs sparing, integral dose and delivery efficiency were compared through dose-volume histogram (DVH) analysis. Compared with 2ARC plans, IMRT exhibited a slightly superior target coverage with higher D98%, CI and lower D2%, D50%, V110% and HI (P < 0.01). For OARs, IMRT produced lower V40Gy and Dmean to the bladder and rectum (P < 0.01) and lower V40Gy to bone marrow than 2ARC (P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed for the colon, small bowel and femoral heads, while 2ARC performed worse at the low dose and integral dose to normal tissue (V5Gy, V10Gy and NTID, P < 0.01). Nevertheless, IMRT increased MUs by 1.65% and EDT by 107 s compared to 2ARC. Compared with 2ARC, 3ARC showed no improvement in target dose coverage, including D98%, D2%, D50%, V110%, CI and HI to PTV, but increased the doses to OARs (Dmean to the bladder, rectum and bone marrow, V40Gy to the bone marrow and D5% to both the left and right femoral heads, P < 0.05), low dose and integral dose to normal tissue (V10Gy,V15Gy,V20Gy and NTID, P < 0.01) and simultaneously prolonged the EDT (P < 0.001). In the treatment of gynecological cancer with a large planning target volume, the IMRT technique can be delivered superior conformal dose to the target with somewhat better OARs sparing but increasing the estimated delivery time.