Dosimetric Comparison between Single and Dual Arc-Volumetric Modulated Arc Radiotherapy and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Using a Simultaneous Integrated Boost Technique

Document Type: Research Articles


1 Department Of Radiotherapy,Omega Hospitals, Hyderabad, India.

2 Department Of Physics, VIT University, Vellore, India.


Backround: Plan quality and performance of dual arc (DA) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) , single arc (SA) VMAT and nine field (9F) intensity modulated radiotherapy were compared using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique. Methods: Twelve patients treated in Elekta Synergy Platform (mlci2) by 9F-IMRT were replanned with SA/DA-VMAT using a CMS Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS) with Monte Carlo simulation. Target delineation was conducted as per Radiation Therapy Oncology Protocols (RTOG0225 and 0615). A 70Gy dose prescribed to PTV70 and 61Gy to PTV61 in 33 fractions was applied for the SIB technique. The conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) for targets and the mean dose and maximum dose for OAR’s, treatment delivery time (min), monitor units (MUs) per fraction, normal tissue integral dose and patient specific quality assurance were analysed. Results: Acceptable target coverage was achieved for PTV70 and PTV61 with all the planning techniques. No significant differences were observed except for D98 (PTV61), CI(PTV70) and HI(PTV61). Maximum dose (Dmax) to the spinal cord was lower in DA-VMAT than 9F-IMRT (p=0.002) and SA-VMAT (p=0.001). D50 (%) of parotid glands was better controlled by 9F-IMRT (p=0.001) and DA-VMAT (p=0.001) than SA-VMAT. A lower mean dose to the larynx was achieved with 9F-IMRT (P=0.001) and DA-VMAT (p=0.001) than with SA-VMAT. DA-VMAT achieved higher CI of PTV70 (P= 0.005) than SA-VMAT. For PTV61, DA-VMAT (P=0.001) and 9F-IMRT (P=0.001) achieved better HI than SA-VMAT. The average treatment delivery times were 7.67mins, 3.35 mins, 4.65 mins for 9F- IMRT, SA-VMAT and DA-VMAT, respectively. No significant difference were observed in MU/fr (p=0.9) and NTID (P=0.90) and the patient quality assurance pass rates were >95% (gamma analysis Ґ3mm, 3%). Conclusion: DA-VMAT showed better conformity over target dose and spared the OARs better or equal to IMRT. SA-VMAT could not spare the OARs well. DA-VMAT offered shorter delivery time than IMRT without compromising the plan quality.


Main Subjects