SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Onkoloji Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 2

Dosimetric Comparison of Static Field Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Adjuvant Treatment of Patients with Endometrial Cancer

Songül KARACAM
Ismet ŞAHINLER
Gülyüz ATKOVAR
Şefika Arzu ERGEN
Olgun ELICIN
Servet IPEK
Pages
70–76
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

VMAT remains an attractive solution due to low number of monitor units needed and shorter treatment duration, which allows more time for patient imaging and positioning.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE The extent of previously published studies comparing static intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in the adjuvant setting of endometrial cancer is limited and reports do not cover the whole landscape of today’s clinical practice.
📊
Key Findings & Data:METHODS Using 12 image sets, VMAT with double arcs and IMRT with 7 fields were planned.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:VMAT remains an attractive solution due to low number of monitor units needed and shorter treatment duration, which allows more time for patient imaging and positioning.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

OBJECTIVE The extent of previously published studies comparing static intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in the adjuvant setting of endometrial cancer is limited and reports do not cover the whole landscape of today’s clinical practice. The aim of this study was to compare these treatment techniques. METHODS Using 12 image sets, VMAT with double arcs and IMRT with 7 fields were planned. The femoral heads, rectum, bladder, iliac bone marrow, and bowels were contoured as organs at risk (OARs). Planned treatment volume (PTV) was prescribed to be 45 gray (Gy). Target and OAR parameters, conformity, and homogeneity indices were evaluated. P value under 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS Objectives for target volumes were achieved. No significant differences were found in conformity index, maximum dose (Dmax), or integral dose. Homogeneity index was better with IMRT (1.06 vs. 1.07; p< 0.01). Dose received by 2% volume of PTV (D2%), D5%, the volume receiving 107% of prescribed dose (V107%), and V105% were lower with IMRT (p< 0.05). PTV D98%, percent volume receiving ≥45 Gy (V45 Gy), and clinical target volume V45 Gy were higher with VMAT (p< 0.05). Regarding OARs, only rectum V40 Gy, rectum PTV V40 Gy, and dose volume parameter D2cc were lower with VMAT (p< 0.05). VMAT was superior with respect to monitor units and beam-on time per fraction: 465 vs. 1689 and 166 vs. 338 seconds, respectively (p< 0.001). CONCLUSION Static IMRT is superior to VMAT regarding homogeneity, Dmax and OAR sparing, except for the rectum and the bladder. However, it is a marginal benefit with small differences. VMAT remains an attractive solution due to low number of monitor units needed and shorter treatment duration, which allows more time for patient imaging and positioning.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARACAM, S., ŞAHINLER, I., ATKOVAR, G., ERGEN, Ş. A., ELICIN, O., IPEK, S. (2022). Dosimetric Comparison of Static Field Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Adjuvant Treatment of Patients with Endometrial Cancer. Türk Onkoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 2, 70–76. https://ajindex.com/articles/639275

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61(2):69–90
  2. Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2007. National Cancer Institute. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007/. Accessed Jun 14, 2017
  3. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) Uterine Neoplasms Version 2. 2015. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/ physician_gls/pdf/uterine.pdf. Accessed Jun 14, 2017
  4. Gay HA, Barthold HJ, O’Meara E, Bosch WR, El Naqa I, Al-Lozi R, et al. Pelvic normal tissue contouring guidelines for radiation therapy: a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group consensus panel atlas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;83(3):e353–62
  5. Small W, Mundt AJ. Consensus guidelines for the delineation of the intensity modulated pelvic radiotherapy ctv in the postoperative treatment of endometrial and cervical cancer. Available at: http://www.rtog.org/ CoreLab/ContouringAtlases/GYN.aspx. Accessed Jun 14, 2017
  6. Gay HA, Barthold J, O’Meara E, Bosch WR, El Naqa I, Al-Lozi R, et al. Female RTOG Normal Pelvis Atlas. Available at: https://www.rtog.org/CoreLab/ContouringAtlases/FemaleRTOGNormalPelvisAtlas.aspx. Accessed Jun 14, 2017
  7. Mundt AJ, Lujan AE, Rotmensch J, Waggoner SE, Yamada SD, Fleming G, et al. Intensity-modulated whole pelvic radiotherapy in women with gynecologic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;52(5):1330–7
  8. Lujan AE, Mundt AJ, Yamada SD, Rotmensch J, Roeske JC. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy as a means of reducing dose to bone marrow in gynecologic patients receiving whole pelvic radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57(2):516–21
  9. Mundt AJ, Mell LK, Roeske JC. Preliminary analysis of chronic gastrointestinal toxicity in gynecology patients treated with intensity-modulated whole pelvic radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;56(5):1354–60. 10.Jhingran A, Winter K, Portelance L, Miller B, Salehpour M, Gaur R, et al. A phase II study of intensity modulated radiation therapy to the pelvis for postoperative patients with endometrial carcinoma: radiation therapy oncology group trial 0418. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;84(1):e23–8. 11.Wong E, D’Souza DP, Chen JZ, Lock M, Rodrigues G, Coad T, et al. Intensity-modulated arc therapy for treatment of high-risk endometrial malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;61(3):830–41. 12.Cozzi L, Dinshaw KA, Shr