New to MyHealth?
Manage Your Care From Anywhere.
Access your health information from any device with MyHealth. You can message your clinic, view lab results, schedule an appointment, and pay your bill.
ALREADY HAVE AN ACCESS CODE?
DON'T HAVE AN ACCESS CODE?
NEED MORE DETAILS?
MyHealth for Mobile
Volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy for skull-base and non-skull-base head and neck cancer: a treatment planning comparison with fixed Beam IMRT.
Volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy for skull-base and non-skull-base head and neck cancer: a treatment planning comparison with fixed Beam IMRT. Technology in cancer research & treatment Chen, J., Mok, E., Wang, L., Chen, C., Le, Q. 2013; 12 (1): 11-18Abstract
The purpose of this study is to compare the dose distribution, monitor units (MUs) and radiation delivery time between volumetric-modulated arc (VMAT) and fix-beam intensity modulated radiotherapy (FB-IMRT) in skull-base and non-skull-base head and neck cancer (HNC). CT datasets of 8 skull-base and 7 non-skull-base HNC were identified. IMRT and VMAT plans were generated. The prescription dose ranged 45-70?Gy (1.8-2.2?Gy/fraction). The VMAT delivery time was measured when these plans were delivered to the patients. The FB-IMRT delivery time was generated on a phantom. Comparison of dose-volume histogram data, MUs, and delivery times was performed using T-test. Our results show that both plans yield similar target volume coverage, homogeneity, and conformity. In skull-base cases, compared to FB-IMRT, VMAT generated significantly smaller hot-spot inside PTV (2.0% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.031), lower maximum chiasm dose (32 ± 11?Gy vs. 41 ± 15?Gy, p = 0.026), lower ipsilateral temporal-mandibular joint dose (D33: 41.4?Gy vs. 46.1?Gy, p = 0.016), lower mean ipsilateral middle ear dose (43 ± 9?Gy vs. 38 ± 10?Gy, p = 0.020) and a trend for lower optic nerve, temporal lobe, parotid, and oral cavity dose. In non-skull-base cases, doses to normal tissues were similar between the two plans. There was a reduction of 70% in MUs (486 ± 95 vs. 1614 ± 493, p < 0.001) and 73% in delivery times (3.0 ± 0.6 vs. 11.0 ± 3.3 min, p < 0.001) favoring VMAT. We conclude that VMAT appears to spare more normal tissues from high radiation dose for the tested skull-base tumors. Dosimetrically, both approaches were equivalent for non-skull-base tumor with VMAT using fewer MUs and shorter delivery time.
View details for PubMedID 22905805