Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2009 Jul;92(1):118-24.
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.12.020. Epub 2009 Jan 30.

Volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinomas of the anal canal: A treatment planning comparison with fixed field IMRT

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinomas of the anal canal: A treatment planning comparison with fixed field IMRT

Alessandro Clivio et al. Radiother Oncol. 2009 Jul.

Abstract

Purpose: A treatment planning study was performed to compare volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy against conventional fixed field IMRT.

Materials and methods: CT datasets of 10 patients affected by carcinoma of the anal canal were included and five plans were generated for each case: fixed beam IMRT, single (RA1)- and double (RA2)-modulated arcs with the RapidArc technique. Dose prescription was set according to a simultaneous integrated boost strategy to 59.4 Gy to the primary tumour PTVI (at 1.8 Gy/fraction) and to 49.5 Gy to risk area including inguinal nodes, PTVII. Planning objectives for PTV were minimum dose >95%, maximum dose<107%; for organs at risk (OARs): bladder (mean<45 Gy, D(2%)<56 Gy, D(30%)<35 Gy), femurs (D(2%)<47 Gy), small bowel (mean<30 Gy, D(2%)<56 Gy). MU and delivery time scored treatment efficiency.

Results: All techniques fulfilled objectives on maximum dose. Some deviations were observed on minimum dose for PTV. Uniformity (D(5)-D(95)) on PTVI resulted 6.6+/-1.4% for IMRT and ranged from 5.7+/-0.3% to 8.1+/-0.8% for RA plans (+/-1 standard deviation). Conformity index (CI(95%)) was 1.3+/-0.1 (IMRT) and 1.4+/-0.1 (all RA techniques). Bladder: all techniques resulted equivalent above 40 Gy; V(30 Gy) approximately 57% for the double arcs, approximately 61% for RA1 and approximately 65% for IMRT. Femurs: maximum dose was of the order of 41-42 Gy for all RA plans and approximately 45 Gy for IMRT. Small bowel: all techniques respected planning objectives. The number of computed MU/fraction was 1531+/-206 (IMRT), 468+/-95 (RA1), and 545+/-80 (RA2) leading to differences in treatment time: 9.4+/-1.7 min for IMRT vs. 1.1+/-0.0 min for RA1 and 2.6+/-0.0 min for double arcs.

Conclusion: RapidArc showed improvements in organs at risk and healthy tissue sparing with uncompromised target coverage when double arcs are applied. Optimal results were also achieved anyway with IMRT plans.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms