Dose Distribution Analysis of Rapid Arc and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Plan in Head and Neck Cancer

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors

1 Apollo Hospitals, Bilaspur (C.G),India

2 Apollo hospital Bilaspur(C.G)

3 Apollo Hospitals Bilaspur,Chhattisgarh,India

Abstract

Introduction: Globally, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is considered as highly precise and accurate method of radiotherapy planning. This technique amplifies spatial dose distribution conformity by modulating the intensity of radiation beams in each sub-volume. Additionally, it can reduces the dose to surrounding critical organs and deliver the planned dose to targets with the nominal risk of side effects.
Material and Methods: In this study, 13 patients with head and neck cancer were randomly taken for analysis. The IMRT and Rapid Arc plans were generated for each case in the Eclipse treatment planning system, version 11.0. There were seven to nine beams deployed in IMRT plan, while Rapid Arc plans were performed using two arcs with opposite direction of rotation. Portal dosimetry plans were created and analyzed before executing the plan on the patient.
Results: The mean of V95%(Target’s volume covered by 95% isodose line)was 97.89% and 97.47% for Rapid Arc and IMRT plans, respectively. Moreover, mean standard deviations were found 1.93 and 1.70 in Rapid Arc and IMRT plans, respectively. The mean gamma index was97.55% and 98.43% in Rapid Arc and IMRT, respectively.
Conclusion: IMRT technique was slightly better in the treatment of head and neck cancer compared to the Rapid Arc method. The only advantage of Rapid Arc was saving the treatment time by two to three times on an average compared with IMRT. It is prudent to use IMRT technique in head and neck cancer treatment.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. References

     

    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. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2009 May 1;74(1):252-9.
    2. Yoo S, Wu QJ, Lee WR, Yin FF. Radiotherapy treatment plans with RapidArc for prostate cancer involving seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2010 Mar 1;76(3):935-42.
    3. Bindhu J, Sanjay SU, Pawar Y. Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) the white, black and grey: a clinical perspective. Reports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy. 2009 May 1;14(3):95-103.
    4. Solaiappan G, Singaravelu G, Prakasarao A, Rabbani B, Supe S. Influence of photon beam energy on IMRT plan quality for radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Reports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy. 2009 Jan 1;14(1):18-31.
    5. Derbyshire SJ, Morgan AM, Thompson RC, Henry AM, Thwaites DI. Optimal planning parameters for simultaneous boost IMRT treatment of prostate cancer using a Beam Modulator™. Reports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy. 2009 Nov 1;14(6):205-13.
    6. Varian Medical Systems. Available from: http://www.varian.com.
    7. Zhang P, Happersett L, Yang Y, Yamada Y, Mageras G, Hunt M. Optimization of collimator trajectory in volumetric modulated arc therapy: development and evaluation for paraspinal SBRT. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2010 Jun 1;77(2):591-9.
    8. Zhang P, Happersett L, Hunt M, Jackson A, Zelefsky M, Mageras G. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: planning and evaluation for prostate cancer cases. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2010 Apr 1;76(5):1456-62.
    9. Kumar SS, Vivekanandan N, Sriram P. A study on conventional IMRT and RapidArc treatment planning techniques for head and neck cancers. Reports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy. 2012 May 1;17(3):168-75.
    10. 10.Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, LoSasso TJ, Mechalakos JG, Mihailidis D, et al. IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Medical physics. 2009 Nov 1;36(11):5359-73.
    11. Sakhalkar HS, Sterling D, Adamovics J, Ibbott G, Oldham M. Investigating the Feasibility of 3D Dosimetry in the RPC IMRT H&N Phantom. InJournal of Physics: Conference Series 2009 (Vol. 164, No. 1, p. 012058). IOP Publishing.
    12. Winiecki J, Morgaś T, Majewska K, Drzewiecka B. The gamma evaluation method as a routine QA procedure of IMRT. Reports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy. 2009 Sep 1;14(5):162-8.
    13. Stock M, Kroupa B, Georg D. Interpretation and evaluation of the γ index and the γ index angle for the verification of IMRT hybrid plans. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2005 Jan 12;50(3):399.14.
    14. Childress NL, Rosen II. The design and testing of novel clinical parameters for dose comparison. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2003 Aug 1;56(5):1464-79.
    15. Blanpain B, Mercier D. The delta envelope: a technique for dose distribution comparison. Medical physics. 2009 Mar;36(3):797-808.
    16. Emami  B, Department of Radiation Oncology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois, USA,2013
    17. Bentzen SM, Constine LS, Deasy JO. Quantitative Analyses of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC): an introduction to the scientific issues,Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl):S3-9.
Iranian Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 16, Issue 2 - Serial Number 2
March and April 2019
Pages 139-144

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 15 May 2018
  • Revise Date: 31 August 2018
  • Accept Date: 15 September 2018

Share

How to cite

Statistics