Recently, volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has demonstrated the ability to deliver radiation dose precisely and accurately with a shorter delivery time compared to conventional intensity‐modulated fixed‐field treatment (IMRT). We applied the hypothesis of VMAT technique for the treatment of thoracic esophageal carcinoma to determine superior or equivalent conformal dose coverage for a large thoracic esophageal planning target volume (PTV) with superior or equivalent sparing of organs‐at‐risk (OARs) doses, and reduce delivery time and monitor units (MUs), in comparison with conventional fixed‐field IMRT plans. We also analyzed and compared some other important metrics of treatment planning and treatment delivery for both IMRT and VMAT techniques. These metrics include: 1) the integral dose and the volume receiving intermediate dose levels between IMRT and VMATI plans; 2) the use of 4D CT to determine the internal motion margin; and 3) evaluating the dosimetry of every plan through patient‐specific QA. These factors may impact the overall treatment plan quality and outcomes from the individual planning technique used. In this study, we also examined the significance of using two arcs vs. a single‐arc VMAT technique for PTV coverage, OARs doses, monitor units and delivery time. Thirteen patients, stage T2‐T3 N0‐N1 (TNM AJCC 7th edn.), PTV volume median 395 cc (range 281–601 cc), median age 69 years (range 53 to 85), were treated from July 2010 to June 2011 with a four‐field false(n=4false) or five‐field false(n=9false) step‐and‐shoot IMRT technique using a 6 MV beam to a prescribed dose of 50 Gy in 20 to 25 F. These patients were retrospectively replanned using single arc (normalVnormalMnormalAnormalTnormalI, 91 control points) and two arcs (normalVnormalMnormalAnormalTnormalInormalI, 182 control points). All treatment plans of the 13 study cases were evaluated using various dose‐volume metrics. These included PTV D99, PTV D95, PTV V9547.5Gyfalse(95normal%false), PTV mean dose, Dmax, PTV dose conformity (Van't Riet conformation number (CN)), mean lung dose, lung V20 and V5, liver V30, and Dmax to the spinal canal prv3mm. Also examined were the total plan monitor units (MUs) and the beam delivery time. Equivalent target coverage was observed with both VMAT single and two‐arc plans. The comparison of VMATI with fixed‐field IMRT demonstrated equivalent target coverage; statistically no significant difference were found in PTV D99 false(p=0.47false), PTV mean false(p=0.12false), PTV D95 and PTV V9547.5Gy false(95normal%false) false(p=0.38false). However, Dmax in VMATI plans was significantly lower compared to IMRT false(p=0.02false). The Van't Riet dose conformation number (CN) was also statistically in favor of VMATI plans false(p=0.04false). VMATI achieved lower lung V20 false(p=0.05false), whereas lung V5 false(p=0.35false) and mean lung dose false(p=0.62false) were not significantly different. The other OARs, including spinal canal, liver, heart, and kidneys showed no statistically significant differences bet...

The layer model of EPID built for Monte Carlo calculations offered fast (less than 1 min) and accurate calculation for transit dosimety and dose reconstruction.

The proposed method of AIF estimation allows low scanning frequency in DCE-CT study to reduce radiation dose to patient, while maintaining relatively high accuracy in the kinetic parameter estimates. The initial results suggested that the method is applicable for DCE-CT studies for patients with cervical cancer.

This work is to compare the kinetic parameters derived from the DCE-CT and -MR data of a group of 37 patients with cervical cancer. The modified Tofts model and the reference tissue method were applied to estimate kinetic parameters. In the MR kinetic analyses using the modified Tofts model for each patient data set, both the arterial input function (AIF) measured from DCE-MR images and a population-averaged AIF from the literature were applied to the analyses, while the measured AIF was used for the CT kinetic analysis. The kinetic parameters obtained from both modalities were compared. Significant moderate correlations were found in modified Tofts parameters [volume transfer constant(K(trans) ) and rate constant (k(ep) )] between CT and MR analysis for MR with the measured AIFs (R = 0·45, P<0·01 and R = 0·40, P<0·01 in high-K(trans) region; R = 0·38, P<0·01 and R = 0·80, P<0·01 in low-K(trans) region) as well as with the population-averaged AIF (R = 0·59, P<0·01 and R = 0·62, P<0·01 in high-K(trans) region; R = 0·50, P<0·01 and R = 0·63, P<0·01 in low-K(trans) region), respectively. In addition, from the Bland-Altman plot analysis, it was found that the systematic biases (the mean difference) between the modalities were drastically reduced in magnitude by adopting the population-averaged AIF for the MR analysis instead of the measured ones (from 51·5% to 18·9% for K(trans) and from 21·7% to 4·1% for k(ep) in high-K(trans) region; from 73·0% to 29·4% for K(trans) and from 63·4% to 24·5% for k(ep) in low-K(trans) region). The preliminary results showed the feasibility in the interchangeable use of the two imaging modalities in assessing cervical cancers.

No abstract