Peripheral dose measurements in cervical cancer radiotherapy: a comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and step-and-shoot IMRT techniques

Radiation Oncology

Da W Liu³  Song Gao¹  Na Li²  Ge Feng²  Ce Yin²  Xu Zhang²  Ming X Jia² 

[1] Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110022, China;Department of Radiation Oncology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110022, China;Department of Radiation Oncology, The Fourth Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110032, China

关键词: Peripheral dose;    Intensity modulated radiation therapy;    Volumetric modulated arc therapy;    Cervical cancer;   

Others  :  813919
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-717X-9-61

 received in 2013-08-12, accepted in 2014-02-13,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate the peripheral doses resulting from volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques in cervical cancer radiotherapy.

Methods

Nine patients with cervical cancer had treatment planned with both VMAT and IMRT. A specially designed phantom was used for this study, with ion chambers placed at interest points approximating the position of the breast, thyroid, and lens. The peripheral doses at the phantom interest points were measured and compared between the VMAT and IMRT techniques.

Results

VMAT provides a potential dosimetric advantage compared with IMRT. The mean (± standard deviation) peripheral dose to the breast point for 1 fraction (2 Gy) during VMAT measured 5.13 ± 0.96 mGy, compared with 9.04 ± 1.50 mGy for IMRT. At the thyroid and lens interest points, the mean (± standard deviation) peripheral dose during VMAT was 2.19 ± 0.33 and 2.16 ± 0.28 mGy, compared with 7.07 ± 0.76 and 6.97 ± 0.91 mGy for IMRT, respectively. VMAT reduced the monitor units used by 28% and shortened the treatment delivery time by 54% compared with IMRT.

Conclusion

While the dosimetric results are similar for both techniques, VMAT results in a lower peripheral dose to the patient and reduces the monitor-unit usage and treatment delivery time compared with IMRT.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Jia et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Georg P, Georg D, Hillbrand M, Kirisits C, Poetter R: Factors influencing bowel sparing in intensity modulated whole pelvic radiotherapy for gynaecological malignancies. Radiother Oncol 2006, 80:19-26.
• [2]Portelance L, Chao C, Grisby P, Benner H, Low D: Intensity modulated radiation therapy(IMRT) reduces small bowel, rectum and bladder doses in patients with cervical cancer receiving pelvic and para-aortic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001, 51:261-266.
• [3]Mundt A, Lujan A, Rotmensch J, Waggner S, Yamada D, Fleming G, et al.: Intensity modulated whole pelvic radiotherapy in women with gynaecologic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002, 52:1330-1337.
• [4]Roeske J, Lujan A, Rotmensch J, Waggner S, Yamada D, Mundt A: Intensity modulated whole pelvic radiation therapy in patients with gynaecologic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000, 48:1613-1621.
• [5]Sharma SD, Upreti RR, Laskar S, et al.: Estimation of risk of radiation-induced carcinogenesis in adolescents with nasopharyngeal cancer treated using sliding window IMRT. Radiother Oncol 2008, 86:177-181.
• [6]Hall EJ, Wuu CS: Radiation-induced second cancers: the impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003, 56:83-88.
• [7]Verellen D, Vanhavere F: Risk assessment of radiation induced malignancies based on whole-body equivalent dose estimates for IMRT treatment in the head and neck region. Radiother Oncol 1999, 53:199-203.
• [8]Ruben JD, Davis S, Evans C, Jones P, Gagliardi F, Harnes M, Hunter A: The effect of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on radiation-induced second malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008, 70:1530-1536.
• [9]Vanetti E, Clivio A, Nicolini G, Fogliata A, Ghosh-Laskar S, Agarwal JP, et al.: Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinomas of the oro-pharynx, hypo-pharynx and larynx: a treatment planning comparison with fixed field IMRT. Radiother Oncol 2009, 92:111-117.
• [10]Lu SH, Cheng CH, Kuo SH, et al.: Volumetric modulated arc therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a dosimetric comparison with TomoTherapy and step-and-shoot IMRT. Radiother Oncol 2012, 104:324-330.
• [11]McGrath SD, Matuszak MM, Yan D, Kestin LL, Martinez AA, Grills IS: Volumetric modulated arc therap for delivery of hypofractionated stereotactic lung radiotherapy: a dosimetric and treatment efficiency analysis. Radiother Oncol 2010, 97:437-442.
• [12]Palma D, Vollans E, James K, Nakano S, Moiseenko V, Shaffer R, et al.: Volumetric modulated arc therapy for delivery of prostate radiotherapy: comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008, 72:996-1001.
• [13]Zhang P, Happersett L, Hunt M, Jackson A, Zelefsky M, Mageras G: Volumetric modulated arc therapy: planning and evaluation for prostate cancer cases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010, 76:1456-1462.
• [14]Cozzi L, Dinshaw KA, Shrivastava SK, et al.: A treatment planning study comparing volumetric arc modulation with RapidArc and fixed field IMRT for cervix uteri radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2008, 89:180-191.
• [15]Aznar MC, Petersen PM, Logadottir A, et al.: Rotational radiotherapy for prostate cancer in clinical practice. Radiother Oncol 2010, 97:480-484.
• [16]Mutic S, Klein EE: A reduction in the AAPM TG-36 reported peripheral dose distributions with tertiary multileaf collimation. American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 36. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999, 44:947-953.
• [17]Stern RL: Peripheral dose from a linear accelerator equipped with multileaf collimation. Med Phys 1999, 26:559-563.
• [18]Eric EK, Beth M, Roy W, David M: Peripheral doses from pediatric IMRT. Med Phys 2006, 33(7):2525-2531.
• [19]Mansur DB, Klein EE, Maserang BP: Measured peripheral dose in pediatric radiation therapy: a comparison of intensity-modulated and conformal techniques. Radiother Oncol 2007, 82:179-184.
• [20]Shamurailatpam DS, Ritu RU, Deepak DD: Use of peripheral dose data from uniform dynamic multileaf collimation fields to estimate out-of-field organ dose in patients treated employing sliding window intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 2006, 51:2987-2995.
• [21]Vrdoljak E, Prskalo T, Omrcen T, Situm K, Boraska T, Frleta I, et al.: Concomitant chemobrachyradiotherapy with ifosfamide and cisplatin followed by consolidation chemotherapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Results of a phase IIstudy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 61:824-829.
• [22]Kase KR, Svensson GK, Wolbarst AB, et al.: Measurements of dose from secondary radiation outside a treatment field. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1983, 9:1177-1183.
• [23]Sharma DS, Deshpande SS, Animesh, et al.: Peripheral dose from uniform dynamic multileaf collimation fields: implications for sliding window intensity modulated radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2006, 79:331-335.
• [24]Followill D, Geis P, Boyer A: Estimates of whole-body dose equivalent produced by beam intensity modulated conformal therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997, 38:667-672.
• [25]Hall EJ: Intensity modulated radiation therapy, protons, and the risk of second cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006, 65:1-7.
• [26]Aoyama H, Westerly DC, Mackie TR, et al.: Integral radiation dose to normal structures with conformal external beam radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006, 64:962-967.
• [27]SaIz H, Eichner R, Wiezorek T: Doses IMRT increase the peripheral radiation dose? A comparison of treatment plans 2000 and 2010. Z Med Phys 2012, 22:6-12.
• [28]Qiu Y, Moiseenko V, Aquino-Parsons C, et al.: Equivalent doses for gynecological patients undergoing IMRT and RapidArc with kilovoltage cone beam CT. Radiother Oncol 2012, 104:257-262.