Dosimetric comparison of static intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy in lymphoma patients received mediastinal radiation
Zhang Wenjue, Ding Zhen, Wang Yuenan, Guo Zhi, Jiang Wei, Peng Miao, Liang Jun, Chen Zhijian, Ren Hua, Wang Lyuhua
2019, 46 (7):
404-409.
doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-422X.2019.07.003
ObjectiveTo compare target dosimetric distribution and normal tissue radiation between different static intensitymodulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and to identify the best IMRT plan for lymphoma patients needed mediastinal radiation. MethodsA total of 11 patients with lymphoma who received first course radiotherapy in the mediastinal region after chemotherapy in Cancer Hospital & Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College from March 2017 to January 2019 were included in the study. There were 8 males and 3 females, 2 patients were in Ann Arbor stage ⅠⅡ, and 9 cases in ⅢⅣ stage. There were 6 patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and 5 patients with nonHodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Patients with HL and NHL were given prescript doses of 36 Gy and 50 Gy, respectively. Three plans were designed for each patient: static 5FIMRT, 7FIMRT and VMAT plan. The target dosimetric distribution, normal tissue radiation dose, and efficiency of each plan were evaluated. ResultsThe mean conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) values of plan target volume (PTV) in 5FIMRT, 7FIMRT, VMAT plan were 0.64±0.06, 0.67±0.05, 0.76±0.04 (F=17.045, P<0.001) and 1.07±0.01, 1.07±0.01, 1.09±0.01 (F=9.258, P=0.001), respectively. VMAT showed significantly better CI than two static IMRT plans (both P<0.001), but worse HI (both P<0.001). The lungs low dose irradiation volume (V5) and high dose irradiation volume (V30) in 5FIMRT, 7FIMRT, VMAT plan were (43.98±7.77)%, (42.71±4.98)%, (55.92±8.16)% (F=8.281, P=0.001) and (8.19±2.97)%, (8.25±2.87)%, (7.53±3.16)% (F=0.140, P=0.870), respectively. The volume of low dose irradiation in lungs of VMAT plan was significantly higher than 5FIMRT and 7FIMRT plans (both P<0.001), while high dose volume was no significant difference. The left and right breast low dose irradiation volume (V4) in 5FIMRT, 7FIMRT and VMAT plan were (24.29±8.14)%, (23.87±7.70)%, (80.17±22.92)% (F=14.505, P=0.005) and (22.12±13.28)%, (21.13±13.01)%, (81.77±20.76)% (F=13.938, P=0.006), respectively. VMAT showed significantly higher breast low dose irradiation volume than static IMRT plan (both P<0.05). The number of monitor units and treatment time in 5FIMRT, 7FIMRT, VMAT plan were (1 622±281) MU, (1 729±286) MU, (411±75) MU (F=105.277, P<0.001) and (6.79±0.93) min, (7.42±0.95) min, (4.98±0.00) min (F=29.545, P<0.001), respectively. VMAT showed significantly less monitor units than static IMRT (both P<0.001) and shorter treatment time (both P<0.001). ConclusionFor lymphoma patients who have the indication of mediastinal radiotherapy, VMAT is highly efficient and has no definite dose advantage, the static 5FIMRT or 7FIMRT plan has good conformal and uniform target area, and some organs at risk exposure is even lower.
References |
Related Articles |
Metrics
|