SU-E-T-807: VMAT Vs. DIMRT Vs. SsIMRT Assessing the Dosimetric Parameters of Cervical Carcinoma Treatment with a 20-Patient Sample

Authors


Abstract

Purpose:

The purpose of this study is to assess the dosimetric parameters of cervical carcinoma treatment using 3 different radiation therapy delivery

Methods:

volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), the static-field dynamic multileaf collimator intensity-modulated radiation therapy (dIMRT) and the static-field step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ssIMRT).

Methods:

Twenty patients with cervical carcinoma were selected to be planned with dual arc VMAT, dIMRT and ssIMRT using Monaco 3.3 TPS on the Axesse™ linear accelerator in this investigation. The total dose of the planning target volume (PTV) is 60Gy. The homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), dose volume histograms (DVHs), delivery efficiency, dose of organs at risks (bladder, rectum, and femoral heads), were all measured.

Results:

Dose distribution in 3 different radiation therapy delivery methods satisfied clinical requirements. Mean HI of PTV with VMAT, dIMRT and ssIMRT is 1.08, 1.10, and 1.09 (p>0.05). Mean CI of PTV with VMAT, dIMRT and ssIMRT is 0.82, 0.8 and 0.8 (p>0.05). For the DVH of V10, V20 and V30 in bladder, there was a significant difference: VMAT>dIMRT=ssIMRT (p <0.05). For the DVH of V40 and V50, there was a significant difference: VMAT<dIMRT=ssIMRT (p <0.05). The DVHs of rectum and femoral heads also reflected a similar characteristic with bladder that VMAT gave a higher dose than dIMRT and ssIMRT in low-dose regions (p <0.05), but gave a lower dose than dIMRT and ssIMRT in high-dose regions (p <0.05). For the delivery efficiency, there was a significant difference: VMAT > dIMRT >ssIMRT (p <0.05).

Conclusion:

The results show that VMAT has a great advantage in delivery efficiency than dIMRT and ssIMRT, without compromise to the PTV coverage, HI and CI. The delivery methods should be considered under the actual cervical carcinoma radiotherapy situation.

Ancillary