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
. 2016 Jun;89(1062):20160009.
doi: 10.1259/bjr.20160009. Epub 2016 Apr 4.

Effects of full-neck volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs split-field intensity-modulated head and neck radiation therapy on low neck targets and structures

Shibu J Anamalayil  1 , Boon-Keng K Teo  1 , Alexander Lin  1 , Robert A Lustig  1 , Peter H Ahn  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Effects of full-neck volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs split-field intensity-modulated head and neck radiation therapy on low neck targets and structures

Shibu J Anamalayil et al. Br J Radiol. 2016 Jun.

Abstract

Objective: While split-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (SF-IMRT) decreases dose to low neck (LAN) structures such as the glottic larynx compared with full-neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), it is unknown whether SF-IMRT affords superior dose avoidance to organs than whole neck-field volumetric-modulated arc therapy (WF-VMAT).

Methods: 10 patients treated definitively with radiation for oropharyngeal, oral cavity or nasopharyngeal carcinoma were compared. Only patients ideally suited for SF-IMRT plans were included. The glottic larynx, supraglottic larynx, arytenoids, pharyngeal constrictors, oesophagus, brachial plexus and target volume coverage in the LAN were compared between WF-VMAT and SF-IMRT.

Results: Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) yielded statistically significant decreases in maximum dose to the arytenoids and mean dose to the oesophagus. There was no difference in dose to the glottic larynx, supraglottic larynx, pharyngeal constrictors and brachial plexus. WF-VMAT led to improved coverage to 50/2 Gy fraction equivalent in LAN compared with SF-IMRT using an anteroposterior (AP) LAN field but no difference to the 60/2 Gy fraction equivalent between SF-IMRT and WF-VMAT using AP/posterior-anterior LAN boost.

Conclusion: WF-VMAT affords equivalent glottic and supraglottic larynx dose and lower dose to the arytenoids and oesophagus. WF-VMAT better covers most LAN target structures. Given these findings as well as concerns with matchline cold spots or hotspots with SF-IMRT, patients requiring comprehensive elective nodal irradiation should typically be treated with WF-VMAT.

Advances in knowledge: SF-IMRT for larynx sparing has better dosimetric results to normal structures than whole-neck IMRT, but with increased matchline recurrence risk. We show dosimetric equivalence or superiority of WF-VMAT compared with SF-IMRT.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Representation of coverage of lower neck target volumes using (a) split-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (SF-IMRT) and (b) whole-neck volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). At the level of the oesophageal inlet, dose above 30 Gy is represented in the dose cloud, demonstrating higher dose to the oesophagus with (a, c) SF-IMRT plan to the lower neck (maximum dose to the oesophagus 42 Gy) than with (a, d) VMAT plan (maximum dose to the oesophagus of 26 Gy).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Photographs of the larynx (a) prior to treatment and (b) 4 months after treatment for a patient with Stage II nasopharyngeal cancer, demonstrating no significant oedema from treatment with a full-neck volumetric-modulated arc therapy field.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Nutting CM, Morden JP, Harrington KJ, Urbano TG, Bhide SA, Clark C, et al. . Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 127–36. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70290-4 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Amdur RJ, Li JG, Liu C, Hinerman RW, Mendenhall WM. Unnecessary laryngeal irradiation in the IMRT era. Head Neck 2004; 26: 257–63. doi: 10.1002/hed.10379 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Verbakel WF, Cuijpers JP, Hoffmans D, Bieker M, Slotman BJ, Senan S. Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs conventional IMRT in head-and-neck cancer: a comparative planning and dosimetric study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74: 252–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.12.033 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vanetti E, Clivio A, Nicolini G, Fogliata A, Ghosh-Laskar S, Agarwal JP, et al. . Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinomas of the oro-pharynx, hypo-pharynx and larynx: a treatment planning comparison with fixed field IMRT. Radiother Oncol 2009; 92: 111–7. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.12.008 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grégoire V, Ang K, Budach W, Grau C, Hamoir M, Langendijk JA, et al. . Delineation of the neck node levels for head and neck tumors: a 2013 update. DAHANCA, EORTC, HKNPCSG, NCIC CTG, NCRI, RTOG, TROG consensus guidelines. Radiother Oncol 2014; 110: 172–81. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.10.010 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms