Toward optimal radiotherapy in tongue cancer: a comparative study of IMRT and VMAT.

IF 1.6 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Ramita Sharma, Anuj Kumar, Satvir Singh, Neeraj Jain, Meena Sudan
{"title":"Toward optimal radiotherapy in tongue cancer: a comparative study of IMRT and VMAT.","authors":"Ramita Sharma, Anuj Kumar, Satvir Singh, Neeraj Jain, Meena Sudan","doi":"10.1007/s12194-026-01145-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This retrospective study compared the dosimetric performance of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with T3N2 stage squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue treated in a post-operative setting. Thirty patients received 60 Gy in 30 fractions. IMRT plans were developed and corresponding VMAT plans were generated in the Monaco treatment planning system with identical target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) constraints using the Monte Carlo algorithm (3 mm grid, 2% statistical uncertainty). Dose-volume parameters for the planning target volume (PTV) and plan quality indices including conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and uniformity index (UI) were evaluated alongside OAR doses. Both IMRT and VMAT achieved clinically acceptable and comparable target coverage. The small numerical differences observed in PTV dosimetric parameters and plan quality indices between the two techniques should be interpreted with caution, as they fall within the range of the 2% Monte Carlo statistical uncertainty used in dose calculation. OAR doses were broadly similar between techniques, with IMRT demonstrating marginally lower doses to certain serial structures including the spinal cord and brainstem, though all values remained well within established tolerance limits for both techniques. The primary clinically meaningful advantage of VMAT was improved delivery efficiency, demonstrated by reduced monitor units (1033.9 vs. 1212.89) and shorter treatment time (approximately 5 min vs. 8 min). For T3N2 post-operative tongue carcinoma, both IMRT and VMAT provide clinically equivalent dosimetric plan quality, with VMAT offering a significant advantage in treatment delivery efficiency.</p>","PeriodicalId":46252,"journal":{"name":"Radiological Physics and Technology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiological Physics and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-026-01145-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This retrospective study compared the dosimetric performance of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with T3N2 stage squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue treated in a post-operative setting. Thirty patients received 60 Gy in 30 fractions. IMRT plans were developed and corresponding VMAT plans were generated in the Monaco treatment planning system with identical target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) constraints using the Monte Carlo algorithm (3 mm grid, 2% statistical uncertainty). Dose-volume parameters for the planning target volume (PTV) and plan quality indices including conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and uniformity index (UI) were evaluated alongside OAR doses. Both IMRT and VMAT achieved clinically acceptable and comparable target coverage. The small numerical differences observed in PTV dosimetric parameters and plan quality indices between the two techniques should be interpreted with caution, as they fall within the range of the 2% Monte Carlo statistical uncertainty used in dose calculation. OAR doses were broadly similar between techniques, with IMRT demonstrating marginally lower doses to certain serial structures including the spinal cord and brainstem, though all values remained well within established tolerance limits for both techniques. The primary clinically meaningful advantage of VMAT was improved delivery efficiency, demonstrated by reduced monitor units (1033.9 vs. 1212.89) and shorter treatment time (approximately 5 min vs. 8 min). For T3N2 post-operative tongue carcinoma, both IMRT and VMAT provide clinically equivalent dosimetric plan quality, with VMAT offering a significant advantage in treatment delivery efficiency.

舌癌最佳放疗:IMRT与VMAT的比较研究。
本回顾性研究比较了调强放疗(IMRT)和体积调弧治疗(VMAT)在T3N2期舌鳞癌术后的剂量学表现。30例患者分30次接受60 Gy的治疗。在摩纳哥治疗计划系统中制定IMRT计划并生成相应的VMAT计划,使用蒙特卡罗算法(3mm网格,2%统计不确定性),具有相同的目标覆盖率和器官风险(OAR)约束。与OAR剂量一起评估计划目标体积(PTV)的剂量-体积参数和计划质量指标,包括一致性指数(CI)、均匀性指数(HI)和均匀性指数(UI)。IMRT和VMAT均达到了临床可接受和可比较的目标覆盖率。在两种技术之间观察到的PTV剂量学参数和计划质量指标的微小数值差异应谨慎解释,因为它们属于剂量计算中使用的2%蒙特卡罗统计不确定性的范围。两种技术之间的OAR剂量大致相似,IMRT显示对某些系列结构(包括脊髓和脑干)的剂量略低,尽管两种技术的所有值都保持在既定的耐受范围内。VMAT的主要临床优势是提高了输送效率,这可以通过减少监护单位(1033.9对1212.89)和缩短治疗时间(约5分钟对8分钟)来证明。对于T3N2术后舌癌,IMRT和VMAT均能提供临床等效的剂量学计划质量,VMAT在治疗递送效率上具有显著优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Radiological Physics and Technology
Radiological Physics and Technology RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The purpose of the journal Radiological Physics and Technology is to provide a forum for sharing new knowledge related to research and development in radiological science and technology, including medical physics and radiological technology in diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine, and radiation therapy among many other radiological disciplines, as well as to contribute to progress and improvement in medical practice and patient health care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书