Dosimetric comparison of single-arc/partial-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for peripheral and central lung cancer.

Akcay M. Ç., Etiz D., Duruer K., Bozdogan Ö., Ozen A.

Journal of cancer research and therapeutics, cilt.17, sa.1, ss.80-87, 2021 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 17 Sayı: 1
  • Basım Tarihi: 2021
  • Doi Numarası: 10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_221_19
  • Dergi Adı: Journal of cancer research and therapeutics
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, CAB Abstracts, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Veterinary Science Database
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.80-87
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Central lung cancer, dosimetry, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, peripheral lung cancer, volumetric modulated arc therapy
  • Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the differences between intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and single-arc/partial-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (SA/PA-VMAT) techniques in locally advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Locally advanced 22 patients with NSCLC were evaluated retrospectively. Each patient underwent radiation therapy with either IMRT or SA-VMAT or 2PA-VMAT technique. Homogeneity index, conformity number, and dosimetric parameters were evaluated. Results: Ten peripheral and 12 central lung tumors were evaluated. In the entire patient group, tV5-10-60, total mean lung dose (tMLD), iV5-10-30-50-60, iMLD, and esophagus Dmean and Dmax were lower in IMRT technique, cV5-10-20-30, kMLD, and medulla spinalis Dmax were lower in PA-VMAT technique, whereas iMLD is the highest in the SA-VMAT technique. In peripheral tumors, tV5-10-60, iV5-10-20-30-40-60, iMLD, and esophagus Dmean were lower in IMRT technique and kV5-10 was lower in the 2PA-VMAT technique. In central tumors, tV5-10, tMLD, iV5-60, iMLD, and esophagus Dmean and Dmax were lower in IMRT technique, whereas cV10-20 and medulla spinalis Dmax were lower in 2PA-VMAT, and all contralateral lung doses are high in the SA-VMAT technique (all P < 0.05). Conclusion: IMRT and VMAT techniques have different advantages in locally advanced lung cancer, and the use of those two techniques as a hybrid can provide a single collection of these advantages.