scholarly journals Photon Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Versus Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Versus Intensity Modulated Carbon Ion Therapy in the Delivery of Hypofractionated Thoracic Radiation Therapy

2017 ◽  
Vol 98 (1) ◽  
pp. 234-235
Author(s):  
A. Chi ◽  
L.C. Lin ◽  
S. Wen ◽  
H. Yan ◽  
W.C. Hsi
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Proton Therapy ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Carbon Ion Therapy ◽  
Carbon Ion ◽  
Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Thoracic Radiation ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Ion Therapy

scholarly journals Dosimetric Comparison of Helical Tomotherapy, Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy, and Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy for Angiosarcoma of the Scalp

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 153303382098586
Author(s):  
Tomoki Mizuno ◽  
Natsuo Tomita ◽  
Taiki Takaoka ◽  
Masashi Tomida ◽  
Hiroshi Fukuma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Proton Therapy ◽  
Helical Tomotherapy ◽  
Organs At Risk ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
The Other ◽  
Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
Dose Constraint

Objective: We compared radiotherapy plans among helical tomotherapy (HT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for angiosarcoma of the scalp (AS). Methods: We conducted a planning study for 19 patients with AS. The clinical target volume (CTV) 1 and CTV2 were defined as the gross tumor volume with a specific margin and total scalp, respectively. For HT and VMAT, the planning target volume (PTV) 1 and PTV2 were defined as CTV1 and CTV2 with 0.5-cm margins, respectively. For IMPT, robust optimization was used instead of a CTV-PTV margin (i.e. CTV robust). The targets of the HT and VMAT plans were the PTV, whereas the IMPT plans targeted the CTV robust. In total, 70 Gy and 56 Gy were prescribed as the D95% (i.e. dose to 95% volume) of PTV1 (or CTV1 robust) and PTV2 (or CTV2 robust), respectively, using the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique. Other constraint goals were also defined for the target and organs at risk (OAR). Results: All dose constraint parameters for the target and OAR met the goals within the acceptable ranges for the 3 techniques. The coverage of the targets replaced by D95% and D98% were almost equivalent among the 3 techniques. The homogeneity index of PTV1 or CTV1 robust was equivalent among the 3 techniques, whereas that of PTV2 or CTV2 robust was significantly higher in the IMPT plans than in the other plans. IMPT reduced the Dmean of the brain and hippocampus by 49% to 95%, and the Dmax of the spinal cord, brainstem, and optic pathway by 70% to 92% compared with the other techniques. Conclusion: The 3 techniques with SIB methods provided sufficient coverage and satisfactory homogeneity for the targets, but IMPT achieved the best OAR sparing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document