Comparing treatment plan in all locations of esophageal cancer: volumetric modulated arc therapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy

Jang Chun Lin, Jo Ting Tsai, Chih Chieh Chang, Yee Min Jen, Ming Hsien Li, Wei Hsiu Liu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare treatment plans of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for all esophageal cancer (EC) tumor locations.This retrospective study from July 2009 to June 2014 included 20 patients with EC who received definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy with radiation doses >50.4 Gy. Version 9.2 of Pinnacle with SmartArc was used for treatment planning. Dosimetric quality was evaluated based on doses to several organs at risk, including the spinal cord, heart, and lung, over the same coverage of gross tumor volume.In upper thoracic EC, the IMRT treatment plan had a lower lung mean dose (P = 0.0126) and lung V5 (P = 0.0037) compared with VMAT; both techniques had similar coverage of the planning target volumes (PTVs) (P = 0.3575). In middle thoracic EC, a lower lung mean dose (P = 0.0010) and V5 (P = 0.0145), but higher lung V20 (P = 0.0034), spinal cord Dmax (P = 0.0262), and heart mean dose (P = 0.0054), were observed for IMRT compared with VMAT; IMRT provided better PTV coverage. Patients with lower thoracic ECs had a lower lung mean dose (P = 0.0469) and V5 (P = 0.0039), but higher spinal cord Dmax (P = 0.0301) and heart mean dose (P = 0.0020), with IMRT compared with VMAT. PTV coverage was similar (P = 0.0858) for the 2 techniques.IMRT provided a lower mean dose and lung V5 in upper thoracic EC compared with VMAT, but exhibited different advantages and disadvantages in patients with middle or lower thoracic ECs. Thus, choosing different techniques for different EC locations is warranted.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e750
JournalMedicine (United States)
Volume94
Issue number17
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 1 2015

Fingerprint

Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Esophageal Neoplasms
Lung
Thorax
Therapeutics
Spinal Cord
Organs at Risk
Chemoradiotherapy
Tumor Burden
Retrospective Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Comparing treatment plan in all locations of esophageal cancer : volumetric modulated arc therapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy. / Lin, Jang Chun; Tsai, Jo Ting; Chang, Chih Chieh; Jen, Yee Min; Li, Ming Hsien; Liu, Wei Hsiu.

In: Medicine (United States), Vol. 94, No. 17, 01.05.2015, p. e750.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4e3e050e92a146d7a8e6e931f9d8ae63,
title = "Comparing treatment plan in all locations of esophageal cancer: volumetric modulated arc therapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy",
abstract = "The aim of this study was to compare treatment plans of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for all esophageal cancer (EC) tumor locations.This retrospective study from July 2009 to June 2014 included 20 patients with EC who received definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy with radiation doses >50.4 Gy. Version 9.2 of Pinnacle with SmartArc was used for treatment planning. Dosimetric quality was evaluated based on doses to several organs at risk, including the spinal cord, heart, and lung, over the same coverage of gross tumor volume.In upper thoracic EC, the IMRT treatment plan had a lower lung mean dose (P = 0.0126) and lung V5 (P = 0.0037) compared with VMAT; both techniques had similar coverage of the planning target volumes (PTVs) (P = 0.3575). In middle thoracic EC, a lower lung mean dose (P = 0.0010) and V5 (P = 0.0145), but higher lung V20 (P = 0.0034), spinal cord Dmax (P = 0.0262), and heart mean dose (P = 0.0054), were observed for IMRT compared with VMAT; IMRT provided better PTV coverage. Patients with lower thoracic ECs had a lower lung mean dose (P = 0.0469) and V5 (P = 0.0039), but higher spinal cord Dmax (P = 0.0301) and heart mean dose (P = 0.0020), with IMRT compared with VMAT. PTV coverage was similar (P = 0.0858) for the 2 techniques.IMRT provided a lower mean dose and lung V5 in upper thoracic EC compared with VMAT, but exhibited different advantages and disadvantages in patients with middle or lower thoracic ECs. Thus, choosing different techniques for different EC locations is warranted.",
author = "Lin, {Jang Chun} and Tsai, {Jo Ting} and Chang, {Chih Chieh} and Jen, {Yee Min} and Li, {Ming Hsien} and Liu, {Wei Hsiu}",
year = "2015",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/MD.0000000000000750",
language = "English",
volume = "94",
pages = "e750",
journal = "Medicine; analytical reviews of general medicine, neurology, psychiatry, dermatology, and pediatries",
issn = "0025-7974",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "17",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing treatment plan in all locations of esophageal cancer

T2 - volumetric modulated arc therapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy

AU - Lin, Jang Chun

AU - Tsai, Jo Ting

AU - Chang, Chih Chieh

AU - Jen, Yee Min

AU - Li, Ming Hsien

AU - Liu, Wei Hsiu

PY - 2015/5/1

Y1 - 2015/5/1

N2 - The aim of this study was to compare treatment plans of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for all esophageal cancer (EC) tumor locations.This retrospective study from July 2009 to June 2014 included 20 patients with EC who received definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy with radiation doses >50.4 Gy. Version 9.2 of Pinnacle with SmartArc was used for treatment planning. Dosimetric quality was evaluated based on doses to several organs at risk, including the spinal cord, heart, and lung, over the same coverage of gross tumor volume.In upper thoracic EC, the IMRT treatment plan had a lower lung mean dose (P = 0.0126) and lung V5 (P = 0.0037) compared with VMAT; both techniques had similar coverage of the planning target volumes (PTVs) (P = 0.3575). In middle thoracic EC, a lower lung mean dose (P = 0.0010) and V5 (P = 0.0145), but higher lung V20 (P = 0.0034), spinal cord Dmax (P = 0.0262), and heart mean dose (P = 0.0054), were observed for IMRT compared with VMAT; IMRT provided better PTV coverage. Patients with lower thoracic ECs had a lower lung mean dose (P = 0.0469) and V5 (P = 0.0039), but higher spinal cord Dmax (P = 0.0301) and heart mean dose (P = 0.0020), with IMRT compared with VMAT. PTV coverage was similar (P = 0.0858) for the 2 techniques.IMRT provided a lower mean dose and lung V5 in upper thoracic EC compared with VMAT, but exhibited different advantages and disadvantages in patients with middle or lower thoracic ECs. Thus, choosing different techniques for different EC locations is warranted.

AB - The aim of this study was to compare treatment plans of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for all esophageal cancer (EC) tumor locations.This retrospective study from July 2009 to June 2014 included 20 patients with EC who received definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy with radiation doses >50.4 Gy. Version 9.2 of Pinnacle with SmartArc was used for treatment planning. Dosimetric quality was evaluated based on doses to several organs at risk, including the spinal cord, heart, and lung, over the same coverage of gross tumor volume.In upper thoracic EC, the IMRT treatment plan had a lower lung mean dose (P = 0.0126) and lung V5 (P = 0.0037) compared with VMAT; both techniques had similar coverage of the planning target volumes (PTVs) (P = 0.3575). In middle thoracic EC, a lower lung mean dose (P = 0.0010) and V5 (P = 0.0145), but higher lung V20 (P = 0.0034), spinal cord Dmax (P = 0.0262), and heart mean dose (P = 0.0054), were observed for IMRT compared with VMAT; IMRT provided better PTV coverage. Patients with lower thoracic ECs had a lower lung mean dose (P = 0.0469) and V5 (P = 0.0039), but higher spinal cord Dmax (P = 0.0301) and heart mean dose (P = 0.0020), with IMRT compared with VMAT. PTV coverage was similar (P = 0.0858) for the 2 techniques.IMRT provided a lower mean dose and lung V5 in upper thoracic EC compared with VMAT, but exhibited different advantages and disadvantages in patients with middle or lower thoracic ECs. Thus, choosing different techniques for different EC locations is warranted.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937512464&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84937512464&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MD.0000000000000750

DO - 10.1097/MD.0000000000000750

M3 - Article

C2 - 25929910

AN - SCOPUS:84937512464

VL - 94

SP - e750

JO - Medicine; analytical reviews of general medicine, neurology, psychiatry, dermatology, and pediatries

JF - Medicine; analytical reviews of general medicine, neurology, psychiatry, dermatology, and pediatries

SN - 0025-7974

IS - 17

ER -