PMID- 25929910
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20150722
LR  - 20210109
IS  - 1536-5964 (Electronic)
IS  - 0025-7974 (Print)
IS  - 0025-7974 (Linking)
VI  - 94
IP  - 17
DP  - 2015 May
TI  - Comparing treatment plan in all locations of esophageal cancer: volumetric 
      modulated arc therapy versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy.
PG  - e750
LID - 10.1097/MD.0000000000000750 [doi]
LID - e750
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.
FAU - Lin, Jang-Chun
AU  - Lin JC
AD  - From the Department of Radiation Oncology, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical 
      University (J-CL, J-TT, C-CC, Y-MJ, M-HL); Department of Radiation Oncology, 
      Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense, Medical Center (J-CL); Graduate 
      Institute of Medical Sciences (W-HL); and Department of Neurological Surgery, 
      Tri-Service General Hospital and National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan 
      (W-HL).
FAU - Tsai, Jo-Ting
AU  - Tsai JT
FAU - Chang, Chih-Chieh
AU  - Chang CC
FAU - Jen, Yee-Min
AU  - Jen YM
FAU - Li, Ming-Hsien
AU  - Li MH
FAU - Liu, Wei-Hsiu
AU  - Liu WH
LA  - eng
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
PL  - United States
TA  - Medicine (Baltimore)
JT  - Medicine
JID - 2985248R
SB  - IM
MH  - Adult
MH  - Aged
MH  - Esophageal Neoplasms/pathology/*radiotherapy
MH  - Female
MH  - Humans
MH  - Lymphatic Metastasis
MH  - Male
MH  - Middle Aged
MH  - Radiotherapy Dosage
MH  - *Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted
MH  - *Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated
MH  - Retrospective Studies
MH  - Tomography, X-Ray Computed
MH  - Treatment Outcome
PMC - PMC4603071
COIS- The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
EDAT- 2015/05/02 06:00
MHDA- 2015/07/23 06:00
PMCR- 2015/05/01
CRDT- 2015/05/02 06:00
PHST- 2015/05/02 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2015/05/02 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2015/07/23 06:00 [medline]
PHST- 2015/05/01 00:00 [pmc-release]
AID - 00005792-201505010-00018 [pii]
AID - 10.1097/MD.0000000000000750 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 May;94(17):e750. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000750.