Assessment of the Dosimetric Index from IMRT and Rapid arc Plan for Oropharyngeal Cancer with Simultaneous Integrated Boost (SIB) Technique in Combination with EUD-based NTCP and TCP Radiobiological Models

Dashnamoorthy, Sougoumarane; Jeyasingh, Ebenezar; Rajamanickam, Karthick; Ahmed, Imtiaz

doi:10.31557/APJCP.2024.25.5.1515

Assessment of the Dosimetric Index from IMRT and Rapid arc Plan for Oropharyngeal Cancer with Simultaneous Integrated Boost (SIB) Technique in Combination with EUD-based NTCP and TCP Radiobiological Models

Document Type : Research Articles

Authors

¹ Thangam Hospital, Namakkal, India.

² Jamal Mohamed College (Autonomous), Affiliated to Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, India.

³ Department of Radiation Oncology KLES Dr Prabhakar Kore Hospital and MRC, Belgaum, India.

10.31557/APJCP.2024.25.5.1515

Abstract

Purpose: The current research compared radiobiological and dosimetric results for simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) plans employing RapidArc and IMRT planning procedures in oropharyngeal cancer from head-and-neck cancer (HNC) patients. Materials and Methods: The indigenously developed Python-based software was used in this study for generation and analysis. Twelve patients with forty-eight total plans with SIB were planned using Rapid arc (2 and 3 arcs) and IMRT (7 and 9 fields) and compared with radiobiological models Lyman, Kutcher, Burman (LKB) and EUD (Equivalent Uniform Dose) along with physical index such as homogeneity index(HI), conformity index(CI) of target volumes. Results: These models’ inputs are the dose-volume histograms (DVHs) calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS). The values obtained vary from one model to the other for the same technique and patient. The maximum dose to the brainstem and spinal cord and the mean dose to the parotids were analysed both dosimetrically and radiobiologically, such as the LKB model effective volume, equivalent uniform dose, EUD-based normal tissue complication probability, and normal tissue integral dose. The mean and max dose to target volume with conformity, homogeneity index, tumor control probability compared with treatment times, and monitor units. Conclusion: Rapid arc (3 arcs) resulted in significantly better OAR sparing, dose homogeneity, and conformity. The findings indicate that the rapid arc plan has improved dose distribution in the target volume compared with IMRT, but the tumor control probability obtained for the two planning methods, Rapid arc (3 arcs) and IMRT (7 fields), are similar. The treatment time and monitor units for the Rapid arc (3 arcs) were superior to other planning methods and considered to be standard in head & neck radiotherapy.

Keywords