Dosimetric Comparison of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), 5F Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) and 3D Conformal Radiotherapy (3DCRT) in Rectal Carcinoma Receiving Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

• 作者: Bixiu Wen Feng Chi Ge Wen Jinshan Zhang Li Chen Shaoqing Niu Sijuan Huang Yuanhong Gao Yujing Zhang
• 来源期刊: 医学物理学、临床工程、放射肿瘤学(英文)
• 学科: 医学
• 关键词: RECTAL Cancer PREOPERATIVE Radiotherapy DOSIMETRY Conformity INDEX HOMOGENEITY INDEX
• 年，卷（期）: 2015,（1）
• 页码范围: 54-63
• 页数: 10页
• 分类号: R73

摘要

Objective: To investigate better dosimetric distribution of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. 5F intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) when treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Methods: 3D-CRT, 5F-IMRT and VMAT plans for preoperative radiotherapy were 66011designed in 12 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. The conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) in target volume, and the dose and volume of the organs at risk (OAR) irradiated including small bowel, bladder and bilatera1 femoral heads were compared among the three plans. Results: The CI for planning target volume (PTV) 2 and HI for PTV1 of VMRT and 5F-IMRT were superior to 3D-CRT. The CI of VMAT, 5F-IMRT and 3D-CRT plans were 0.71, 0.69 and 0.62 (p = 0.011 and p = 0.019, respectively). The HI of the VMAT and 5F-IMRT plans were both 1.04 and 3D-CRT planning was 1.06 (p = 0.022 and p = 0.006, respectively). The V35 - V45 of small bowel in VMAT were significantly less than in 5F-IMRT and 3D-CRT. V35 was 47.0, 56.4, and 72.8 cm3 for VMAT, 5F-IMRT, and 3D-CRT (p = 0.021 and p = 0.034, respectively), while V40 was 30.5, 35.5, 45.1 cm3 (p = 0.024 and p = 0.032, respectively) and V45 was 15.1, 18.1, 30.0 cm3 (p = 0.033 and p = 0.032, respectively). The D5, V30 and V50 of bladder in 3D-CRT were less than in VMAT and 5F-IMRT planning (p = 0.034, 0.004, 0.002 and p = 0.027, 0.003, 0.002, respectively). The Dmean of left femoral head in VMAT and 5F-IMRT were less than in 3D-CRT planning (p = 0.028 and p = 0.022, respectively) and the Dmean, V30 of right femoral head in VMAT and 5F-IMRT were better than in 3D-CRT planning (p = 0.044, 0.036 and p = 0.023, 0.028, respectively). Conclusions: Dosimetric analyses demonstrated that IMRT is superior to 3D-CRT in the conformity and homogeneity of dose distribution to the target volume, and provide a better protection to OARs sparing in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer for preoperative radiot