PMID- 25293728
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20150320
LR  - 20211021
IS  - 1439-099X (Electronic)
IS  - 0179-7158 (Linking)
VI  - 191
IP  - 1
DP  - 2015 Jan
TI  - Coplanar VMAT vs. noncoplanar VMAT in the treatment of sinonasal cancer.
PG  - 34-42
LID - 10.1007/s00066-014-0760-8 [doi]
AB  - BACKGROUND: Previous studies showed that noncoplanar intensity-modulated 
      radiotherapy (NC-IMRT) for sinonasal cancer is superior to coplanar 
      intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) 
      is a newly introduced treatment modality, and the performance of noncoplanar VMAT 
      for sinonasal cancer has not been well described to date. PURPOSE: To compare the 
      dosimetry difference of noncoplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT), coplanar VMAT (co-VMAT), and 
      NC-IMRT for sinonasal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten postoperative patients 
      with sinonasal cancer were randomly selected for planning with NC-VMAT, co-VMAT, 
      and NC-IMRT. Two planning target volumes (PTVs) were contoured representing 
      high-risk and low-risk regions set to receive a median absorbed dose (D50%) of 68 
      Gy and 59 Gy, respectively. The homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), 
      dose-volume histograms (DVHs), and delivery efficiency were all evaluated. 
      RESULTS: Both NC-VMAT and co-VMAT showed superior dose homogeneity and conformity 
      in PTVs compared with NC-IMRT. There was no significant difference between 
      NC-VMAT and co-VMAT in PTV coverage. Both VMAT plans provided a better protection 
      for organs at risk (OARs) than NC-IMRT plans, and NC-VMAT showed a small 
      improvement over co-VMAT in sparing of OARs. For peripheral doses, the doses to 
      breast, thyroid, and larynx in the NC-IMRT plans were significantly higher than 
      those in both VMAT plans. Compared to NC-VMAT, co-VMAT significantly reduced 
      peripheral doses. NC-VMAT and co-VMAT reduced the average delivery time by 63.2 
      and 64.2%, respectively, in comparison with NC-IMRT. No differences in delivery 
      efficiency were observed between the two VMAT plans. CONCLUSION: Compared to 
      NC-VMAT, co-VMAT showed similar PTV coverage and comparable OAR sparing but 
      significantly reduced peripheral doses and positioning uncertainty. We propose to 
      give priority to coplanar VMAT in the treatment of sinonasal cancer.
FAU - Zhong-Hua, Ning
AU  - Zhong-Hua N
AD  - Department of Radiation Oncology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Soochow 
      University, 185 Juqian Road, 213003, Changzhou, China.
FAU - Jing-Ting, Jiang
AU  - Jing-Ting J
FAU - Xiao-Dong, Li
AU  - Xiao-Dong L
FAU - Jin-Ming, Mu
AU  - Jin-Ming M
FAU - Jun-Chong, Mo
AU  - Jun-Chong M
FAU - Jian-Xue, Jin
AU  - Jian-Xue J
FAU - Ming, Gao
AU  - Ming G
FAU - Qi-Lin, Li
AU  - Qi-Lin L
FAU - Wen-Dong, Gu
AU  - Wen-Dong G
FAU - Lu-Jun, Chen
AU  - Lu-Jun C
FAU - Hong-Lei, Pei
AU  - Hong-Lei P
LA  - eng
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Randomized Controlled Trial
PT  - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
DEP - 20141008
PL  - Germany
TA  - Strahlenther Onkol
JT  - Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et 
      al]
JID - 8603469
SB  - IM
MH  - Absorption, Radiation
MH  - Aged
MH  - Body Burden
MH  - Female
MH  - Humans
MH  - Male
MH  - Middle Aged
MH  - Organ Sparing Treatments/*methods
MH  - Organs at Risk/*radiation effects
MH  - Paranasal Sinus Neoplasms/*radiotherapy
MH  - Radiotherapy Dosage
MH  - Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted/*methods
MH  - Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated/*methods
MH  - Treatment Outcome
EDAT- 2014/10/09 06:00
MHDA- 2015/03/21 06:00
CRDT- 2014/10/09 06:00
PHST- 2014/03/12 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2014/09/06 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2014/10/09 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2014/10/09 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2015/03/21 06:00 [medline]
AID - 10.1007/s00066-014-0760-8 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Strahlenther Onkol. 2015 Jan;191(1):34-42. doi: 10.1007/s00066-014-0760-8. Epub 
      2014 Oct 8.