Comparing step-and-shoot IMRT with dynamic helical tomotherapy IMRT plans for head-and-neck cancer

Vulpen, Marco van; Field, Colin; Raaijmakers, Cornelis P.J.; Parliament, Matthew; Terhaard, Chris H.J.; MacKenzie, M; Scrimger, Rufus; Lagendijk, J J W; Fallone, B

doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.04.011

Cited by 102 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…( 12 , 13 , 21 , 36 , 37 , 60 ) All of these studies found that double RapidArc

({RA}_{2})

provided equivalent or comparable planning results with conventional IMRT. Vanetti et al ( 12 ) observed that

{normalRA}_{2}

improved the homogeneity of dose distribution within PTV and PTV coverage together with a significantly greater sparing of OARs, compared with conventional IMRT and

{normalRA}_{1}

(single RapidArc).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Comparative analysis of SmartArc‐based dual arc volumetric‐modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) versus intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Lee

Chao

Ting

et al. 2011

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and quantify the planning performance of SmartArc‐based volumetric‐modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) versus fixed‐beam intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) using a sequential mode treatment plan. The plan quality and performance of dual arc‐VMAT (DA‐VMAT) using the Pinnacle3 Smart‐Arc system (clinical version 9.0; Philips, Fitchburg, WI, USA) were evaluated and compared with those of seven‐field (7F)‐IMRT in 18 consecutive NPC patients. Analysis parameters included the conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) for the planning target volume (PTV), maximum and mean dose, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the specified organs at risk (OARs), and comprehensive quality index (CQI) for an overall evaluation in the 11 OARs. Treatment delivery time, monitor units per fraction (MU/fr), and gamma (Γ3mm,3%) evaluations were also analyzed. DA‐VMAT achieved similar target coverage and slightly better homogeneity than conventional 7F‐IMRT with a similar CI and HI. NTCP values were only significantly lower in the left parotid gland (for xerostomia) for DA‐VMAT plans. The mean value of CQI at 0.98±0.02 indicated a 2% benefit in sparing OARs by DA‐VMAT. The MU/fr used and average delivery times appeared to show improved efficiencies in DA‐VMAT. Each technique demonstrated high accuracy in dose delivery in terms of a high‐quality assurance (QA) passing rate (>98%) of the (Γ3mm,3%) criterion. The major difference between DA‐VMAT and 7F‐IMRT using a sequential mode for treating NPC cases appears to be improved efficiency, resulting in a faster delivery time and the use of fewer MU/fr.PACS number: 87.53.Tf, 87.55.x, 87.55.D, 87.55.dk

show abstract

“…( 12 , 13 , 21 , 36 , 37 , 60 ) All of these studies found that double RapidArc

({RA}_{2})

provided equivalent or comparable planning results with conventional IMRT. Vanetti et al ( 12 ) observed that

{normalRA}_{2}

improved the homogeneity of dose distribution within PTV and PTV coverage together with a significantly greater sparing of OARs, compared with conventional IMRT and

{normalRA}_{1}

(single RapidArc).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Comparative analysis of SmartArc‐based dual arc volumetric‐modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) versus intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Lee

Chao

Ting

et al. 2011

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…12 Volumetricmodulated arc therapy, a form of rotational IMRT, and stereotactic RT, a form of highly focused irradiation using tridimensional tumor targeting, also offer advantages. 13 Arc therapy reduces IMRT delivery time from 20 minutes to fewer than 5 minutes, while optimizing dose homogeneity and normal tissue sparing, [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] including parotid gland sparing. 26 Stereotactic fractionated RT allows for the generation of x-ray beams from a single electronic source, which can be rotated or moved around a central focus.…”

Section: Chemoradiation Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral complications of cancer and cancer therapy

Epstein

Thariat

Bensadoun

et al. 2012

CA A Cancer J Clinicians

395

356

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Answer questions and earn CME/CNEOral complications resulting from cancer and cancer therapies cause acute and late toxicities that may be underreported, underrecognized, and undertreated. Recent advances in cancer treatment have led to changes in the incidence, nature, and severity of oral complications. As the number of survivors increases, it is becoming increasingly recognized that the aggressive management of oral toxicities is needed to ensure optimal long‐term oral health and general well‐being. Advances in care have had an impact on previously recognized oral complications and are leading to newly recognized adverse effects. Here, the authors briefly review advances in cancer therapy, including recent advances in surgery, oral care, radiation therapy, hematopoietic cell transplantation, and medical oncology; describe how these advances affect oral health; and discuss the frequent and/or severe oral health complications associated with cancer and cancer treatment and their effect upon long‐term health. Although some of the acute oral toxicities of cancer therapies may be reduced, they remain essentially unavoidable. The significant impact of long‐term complications requires increased awareness and recognition to promote prevention and appropriate intervention. It is therefore important for the primary oncologist to be aware of these complications so that appropriate measures can be implemented in a timely manner. Prevention and management is best provided via multidisciplinary health care teams, which must be integrated and communicate effectively in order to provide the best patient care in a coordinated manner at the appropriate time. CA Cancer J Clin 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society.

show abstract

“…There is limited data on axial tomotherapy in comparison with fixed field IMRT. HT has been evaluated in a variety of tumour sites and it can generally achieve either similar or improved dose distributions compared with fixed field IMRT, with variable results on treatment time comparisons [34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. The details of these studies and a review of the use of HT have been discussed elsewhere [25] and will not be discussed in detail in this paper.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Volumetric modulated arc therapy: a review of current literature and clinical use in practice

Teoh

Clark²,

Wood³

et al. 2011

BJR

544

440

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a novel radiation technique, which can achieve highly conformal dose distributions with improved target volume coverage and sparing of normal tissues compared with conventional radiotherapy techniques. VMAT also has the potential to offer additional advantages, such as reduced treatment delivery time compared with conventional static field intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The clinical worldwide use of VMAT is increasing significantly. Currently the majority of published data on VMAT are limited to planning and feasibility studies, although there is emerging clinical outcome data in several tumour sites. This article aims to discuss the current use of VMAT techniques in practice and review the available data from planning and clinical outcome studies in various tumour sites including prostate, pelvis (lower gastrointestinal, gynaecological), head and neck, thoracic, central nervous system, breast and other tumour sites.

show abstract

Comparing step-and-shoot IMRT with dynamic helical tomotherapy IMRT plans for head-and-neck cancer

Cited by 102 publications

References 24 publications

Comparative analysis of SmartArc‐based dual arc volumetric‐modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) versus intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Comparative analysis of SmartArc‐based dual arc volumetric‐modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) versus intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Oral complications of cancer and cancer therapy

Volumetric modulated arc therapy: a review of current literature and clinical use in practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About