VMAT and Step-and-Shoot IMRT in Head and Neck Cancer

Wiehle, R.; Knippen, Stefan; Grosu, Anca‐Ligia; Bruggmoser, G.; Hodapp, Norbert

doi:10.1007/s00066-011-2267-x

Cited by 23 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results agree with previous comparisons between IMRT and VMAT which have shown parotid doses to be either equivalent (11,15) or slightly lower with VMAT (10,13,16,17,18) . Other planning studies also reported marginal improvements in target coverage with VMAT, although this was not observed in this study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The value of arc radiotherapy in the clinic remains a popular topic of research, with many publications investigating the similarities and differences to static beam IMRT (10,11,13‐16) . Many of these comparative studies demonstrate a significant improvement with VMAT in terms of the monitor unit efficiency and delivery time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This delivery method results in a much faster treatment time, and is often accompanied by a lower number of monitor units when compared to sliding window delivery of IMRT fields (10‐12) . Several treatment planning studies have compared VMAT to IMRT for head and neck treatments, (13‐16) including nasopharyngeal carcinoma (17‐19) . Generally, VMAT has been found to provide similar target coverage to seven‐to nine‐field IMRT, while maintaining an acceptable or lower dose to nearby organs at risk.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A bias‐free, automated planning tool for technique comparison in radiotherapy ‐ application to nasopharyngeal carcinoma treatments

Boylan

Rowbottom

2014

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study a novel, user‐independent automated planning technique was developed to objectively compare volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma planning, and to determine which technique offers a greater benefit for parotid‐sparing and dose escalation strategies. Ten patients were investigated, with a standard prescription of three dose levels to the target volumes (70, 63, and 56 Gy), using a simultaneous integrated boost in 33 fractions. The automated tool was used to investigate three planning strategies with both IMRT and VMAT: clinically acceptable plan creation, parotid dose sparing, and dose escalation. Clinically acceptable plans were achieved for all patients using both techniques. For parotid‐sparing, automated planning reduced the mean dose to a greater extent using VMAT rather than IMRT (17.0 Gy and 19.6 Gy, respectively, p<0.01). For dose escalation to the mean of the main clinical target volume, neither VMAT nor IMRT offered a significant benefit over the other. The OAR‐limiting prescriptions for VMAT ranged from 84‐98 Gy, compared to 76‐110 Gy for IMRT. Employing a user‐independent planning technique, it was possible to objectively compare VMAT and IMRT for nasopharyngeal carcinoma treatment strategies. VMAT offers a parotid‐sparing improvement, but no significant benefit was observed for dose escalation to the primary target.PACS numbers: 87.55.D‐, 87.55.kd

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A bias‐free, automated planning tool for technique comparison in radiotherapy ‐ application to nasopharyngeal carcinoma treatments

Boylan

Rowbottom

2014

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Einleitung Die Strahlentherapie ist eine unverzichtbare und zuverlässige Säule in der Therapie onkologischer Erkrankungen und hat durch neue Einsatzbereiche ihr Wirkungsspektrum kontinuierlich erweitern können [10,21,24,34,36,37]. Zahlreiche Vorgaben zur Qualitätssicherung und zum Qualitätsmanagement minimieren die Risiken des Verfahrens.…”

Section: Rechtliche Grundlagen Für Den Umgang Mit Sicherheitsrelevantunclassified

Rechtliche Grundlagen für den Umgang mit sicherheitsrelevanten Ereignissen in der Strahlentherapie

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar conclusions were drawn by Wiehle et al . for patients with head and neck (H&N) tumours [10]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there room for combined modality treatments? Dosimetric comparison of boost strategies for advanced head and neck and prostate cancer

Góra

Hopfgartner²,

Kueß

et al. 2013

Journal of Radiation Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the study was to determine the dosimetric difference between three emerging treatment modalities—volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), intensity-modulated proton beam therapy (IMPT) and intensity-modulated carbon ion beam therapy (IMIT)—for two tumour sites where selective boosting of the tumour is applied. For 10 patients with locally advanced head and neck (H&N) cancer and 10 with high-risk prostate cancer (PC) a VMAT plan was generated for PTVinitial that included lymph node regions, delivering 50 Gy (IsoE) for H&N and 50.4 Gy (IsoE) for PC patients. Furthermore, separate boost plans (VMAT, IMPT and IMIT) were created to boost PTVboost up to 70 Gy (IsoE) and 78 Gy (IsoE) for H&N and PC cases, respectively. Doses to brainstem, myelon, larynx and parotid glands were assessed for H&N cases. Additionally, various OARs (e.g. cochlea, middle ear, masticator space) were evaluated that are currently discussed with respect to quality of life after treatment. For PC cases, bladder, rectum and femoral heads were considered as OARs. For both tumour sites target goals were easily met. Looking at OAR sparing, generally VMAT + VMAT was worst. VMAT + IMIT had the potential to spare some structures in very close target vicinity (such as cochlea, middle ear, masticator space ) significantly better than VMAT + IMPT. Mean doses for rectal and bladder wall were on average 4 Gy (IsoE) and 1.5 Gy (IsoE) higher, respectively, compared to photons plus particles scenarios. Similar results were found for parotid glands and larynx. Concerning target coverage, no significant differences were observed between the three treatment concepts. Clear dosimetric benefits were observed for particle beam therapy as boost modality. However, the clinical benefit of combined modality treatments remains to be demonstrated.

show abstract

VMAT and Step-and-Shoot IMRT in Head and Neck Cancer

Cited by 23 publications

References 30 publications

A bias‐free, automated planning tool for technique comparison in radiotherapy ‐ application to nasopharyngeal carcinoma treatments

A bias‐free, automated planning tool for technique comparison in radiotherapy ‐ application to nasopharyngeal carcinoma treatments

Rechtliche Grundlagen für den Umgang mit sicherheitsrelevanten Ereignissen in der Strahlentherapie

Is there room for combined modality treatments? Dosimetric comparison of boost strategies for advanced head and neck and prostate cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About