3DCRT Versus RapidArc in Terms of Iso-Dose Distribution, Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) and Organs at Risk for Esophageal Cancer (EC) Dosimetric Study

Saud. H. Allehyani; Huda. A. Sharyan; Aida. R. Tolba; Rmadan. A. Hassan

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14

| Peer-Reviewed

3DCRT Versus RapidArc in Terms of Iso-Dose Distribution, Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) and Organs at Risk for Esophageal Cancer (EC) Dosimetric Study

Saud. H. Allehyani, Huda. A. Sharyan, Aida. R. Tolba, Rmadan. A. Hassan

Published in American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine (Volume 5, Issue 4)

Received: 10 May 2017 Accepted: 19 May 2017 Published: 28 June 2017

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Purpose: To compare (3D-CRT) to RapidArc planning using (LNAC of 6 MV) in terms of dosimetric outcomes of iso-dose distribution, dose volume histogram (DVH), PTV and at risk organs in 5 patients with Esophageal cancer (EC). Methods: Plans were created for 5 patients with EC who had received radical RapidArc treatment from 2012 to 2014 at KAMC (King Abdullah Medical City). Results: RapidArc plan showed a more homogeneous dose distribution in PTV, achieving an HI of 1.112 ± 0.030 compared with 1.096 ± 0.029 in the 3D-CRT plan. However, RapidArc and 3D-CRT achieved nearly equal in both modalities with average value of (0.130 ± 0.052) in RapidArc compared to (0.134 ± 0.054) in 3D-CRT, (p = 0.061) in terms of CI values and Target coverage index (TCI) was (0.093 ± 0.032) in RapidArcand and (0.099 ±0.058) in 3D-CRT, (p = 0.767). Additionally, regarding OARs, the mean and maximum dose in Spinal Cord was lower in RapidArc with a low percentage of the volume receiving low doses. Left and Right Lungs were within tolerance in RapidArc and 3D-CRT. RT. Kidney was lower in RapidArc, while LT Kidney was lower in 3D-CRT. For Heart, the maximum dose was within tolerance criteria in RapidArc but exceeded the criteria in 3D-CRT at 60.97 Gy. For the spinal cord, the maximum dose was notably low and did not exceed 1.91 Gy in RapidArc, while it exceeded the acceptable limit in 3D-CRT. Conclusions: (VMAT) is superior to 3D-CRT in term of PTV, conformity and homogeneity. This study suggests that VMAT class solution is the superior treatment option.

Published in	American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine (Volume 5, Issue 4)
DOI	10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14
Page(s)	123-133
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Planning Tumor Volume, Organs at Risk, Conformity Index, Heterogeneity Index, Esophageal Cancer

References

[1]	Perez, Carlos A., and Luther W. Brady., ''Radiation oncology: management decisions’’, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2011.
[2]	Govindan, Ramaswamy, ed.,'' The Washington manual of oncology.'', Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008..
[3]	Parker, R. G., Janjan, N. A., and Selch, M. T., ''Radiation oncology for cure and palliation.'' Springer Science & Business Media, 2003.
[4]	Purdy, James A., Carlos A. Perez, and Philip Poortmans., '' Technical Basis of Radiation Therapy: Practical Clinical Applications.'', Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012.
[5]	International Commission On Radiation Units and Measurements. Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy, ICRU Report50. Bethesda, MD: ICRU, 1993.
[6]	International Commission On Radiation Units and Measurements. Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy, (Supplement to ICRU Report50). ICRU Report 62. Bethesda, MD: ICRU, 1999.
[7]	Weiss, Elisabeth, and Clemens F. Hess., "The impact of gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) definition on the total accuracy in radiotherapy", Strahlentherapie und Onkologie, 2003, 179. (1): 21-30.
[8]	Vokes, Everett E., and Harvey M. Golomb, eds., ''Oncologic therapies.'', Springer Science & Business Media, 2003.
[9]	Perez, C. A., Purdy, J. A., Harms, W., Gerber, R., Graham, M. V., Matthews, J. W., and Simpson, J. R., "Three-dimensional treatment planning and conformal radiation therapy: preliminary evaluation.", Radiotherapy and Oncology, 1995, 36,(1): 32-43.
[10]	Webb, S, ''The Physics of three dimensional radiation Therapy: conformal therapy, radiosurgery and treatment planning.'', Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, UK, 1993.
[11]	Cheng, Chee-Wai, and Indra J. Das., "Treatment plan evaluation using dose–volume histogram (DVH) and spatial dose–volume histogram (zDVH)." International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics, 1999 43,(5): 1143-1150.
[12]	Mundt, Arno J., and John C. Roeske., '' Intensity modulated radiation therapy: a clinical perspective.'', PMPH-USA‏, 2005.
[13]	Timmerman, Robert D., and Lei Xing., ''Image-guided and adaptive radiation therapy.'', Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2012.
[14]	Dybwad, Anniken. "Comparison of Dose Distributions resulting from IMRT and VMAT, and Assessment of MLC Leaf Positioning Errors.", 2013.
[15]	Chao, KS Clifford, Smith Apisarnthanarax, and Gokhan Ozyigit, eds., ''Practical essentials of intensity modulated radiation therapy.'', Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005.
[16]	Ishikura, Satoshi., "Quality assurance of radiotherapy in cancer treatment: toward improvement of patient safety and quality of care.", Japanese journal of clinical oncology, (2008), 38,(11): 723-729.
[17]	Connell, Philip P., and Samuel Hellman., "Advances in radiotherapy and implications for the next century: a historical perspective." Cancer research, 2009, 69, (2): 383-392.
[18]	Wu, and Wing-cheung, ''Inverse planning in three-dimensional conformal and intensity modulated radiotherapy.'', Diss. The University of Hong Kong (Pokfulam, Hong Kong), 2004.
[19]	Ezzell, G. A., Galvin, J. M., Low, D., Palta, J. R., Rosen, I., Sharpe, M. B., and Cedric, X. Y., "Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: report of the IMRT Subcommittee of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee.", (2003), Medical physics, 30.8: 2089-2115.
[20]	Mancuso and Gordon Mark., ''Evaluation of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) Patient Specific Quality Assurance.'', Brigham Young University, 2011.
[21]	Palma, D., Vollans, E., James, K., Nakano, S., Moiseenko, V., Shaffer, R., and Otto, K., "Volumetric modulated arc therapy for delivery of prostate radiotherapy: comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy." International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 2008, 72, (4): 996-1001.
[22]	Salazar and Jessica Emily., ''Optimization of RapidArc for Head-and-Neck Radiotherapy.'', Diss. Duke University, 2011.
[23]	Ong and Chin Loon., ''Volumetric modulated arc therapy for stereotactic body radiotherapy: Planning considera-tions, delivery accuracy and efficiency.'', Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, 2012.
[24]	MacDonald, S. M., Ahmad, S., Kachris, S., Vogds, B. J., DeRouen, M., Gittleman, A. E., and Vlachaki, M. T., "In-tensity modulated radiation therapy versus three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for the treatment of high grade glioma: a dosimetric comparison." J Appl Clin Med Phys, 2007, 8, (2): 47-60.
[25]	Cozzi, L., Dinshaw, K. A., Shrivastava, S. K., Mahant-shetty, U., Engineer, R., Deshpande, D. D., and Fogliata, A., "A treatment planning study comparing volumetric arc modulation with RapidArc and fixed field IMRT for cervix uteri radiotherapy.", Radiotherapy and Oncology, 2008, 89, (2): 180-191.
[26]	Verbakel, W. F., Cuijpers, J. P., Hoffmans, D., Bieker, M., Slotman, B. J., and Senan, S., "Volumetric intensi-ty-modulated arc therapy vs. conventional IMRT in head-and-neck cancer: a comparative planning and dosi-metric study.", International Journal of Radiation Oncolo-gy* Biology* Physics, 2009, 74, (1): 252-259.
[27]	Zheng, B. M., Dong, X. X., Wu, H., Duan, Y. J., Han, S. K., and Sun, Y., "Dosimetry comparison between volumetric modulated arc therapy with RapidArc and fixed field dy-namic IMRT for local-regionally advanced nasopharynge-al carcinoma.", Chinese Journal of Cancer Research, 2011, 2, (4): 259-264.‏
[28]	Peszynska-Piorun, Magdalena, Julian Malicki, and Wojciech Golusinski., "Doses in organs at risk during head and neck radiotherapy using IMRT and 3D-CRT.", Radi-ology and oncology, 2012, 4, (4): 328-336.
[29]	Holt, A., Van Gestel, D., Arends, M. P., Korevaar, E. W., Schuring, D., Kunze-Busch, M. C., and van Vliet-Vroegindeweij, C., "Multi-institutional comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: a planning study.", Radiation Oncology, 2013, 8,(1): 26.‏
[30]	Nguyen, K., Cummings, D., Lanza, V. C., Morris, K., Wang, C., Sutton, J., and Garcia, J., "A dosimetric comparative study: Volumetric modulated arc therapy vs intensi-ty-modulated radiation therapy in the treatment of nasal cavity carcinomas.", Medical Dosimetry, 2013, 38,(3): 225-232.‏
[31]	Nabavizadeh, N., Simeonova, A. O., Waller, J. G., Romer, J. L., Monaco, D. L., Elliott, D. A., and Holland, J. M., "Volu-metric-modulated arc radiotherapy for pancreatic malig-nancies: Dosimetric comparison with sliding-window inten-sity-modulated radiotherapy and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy.", Medical Dosimetry, 2014, 39, (3): 256-260.‏
[32]	Zhang, Q., Li Yu, X., Hu, W. G., Chen, J. Y., Wang, J. Z., Ye, J. S., and Guo, X. M., "Dosimetric comparison for volumet-ric modulated arc therapy and intensity modulated radio-therapy on the left-sided chest wall and internal mammary nodes irradiation in treating post-mastectomy breast can-cer.", Radiology and Oncology, 2012.
[33]	Patil, S. S., May, K. S., Hackett, R. A., Hales, L. D., Van Benthuysen, L. T., Malik, N. K., and Warren, G. W., "A Comparison of VMAT, IMRT, and 3DCRT in the Treatment Planning of Patients with Distal Esophageal Cancer.", International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics, 81. 2 (2011): S324-S325.‏
[34]	Planning Your Treatment: [Cited May, 2013] Available at: http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Cancerinformation/Cancertreatment/Treatmenttypes/Radiotherapy/Beforetreatment/Radiotherapymasks.aspx
[35]	Aird, E. G. A., and J. Conway., "CT simulation for radio-therapy treatment planning." The British journal of radiol-ogy, 2002, 75,(900): 937-949.
[36]	Alvarez-Moret, J., Pohl, F., Koelbl, O., and Dobler, B., "Evaluation of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with Oncentra Master Plan for the treatment of head and neck cancer.", Radiation Oncology, 2010, 5, (110): 110.‏
[37]	Kuo, Y. C., Chiu, Y. M., Shih, W. P., Yu, H. W., Chen, C. W., Wong, P. F., and Hwang, J. J., "Volumetric intensi-ty-modulated Arc (RapidArc) therapy for primary hepato-cellular carcinoma: comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 3-D conformal radiotherapy.", Radiation Oncology, 2011, 6: 76.‏
[38]	Yi, B. Y., Ahn, S. D., Kim, J. H., Lee, S. W., and Choi, E. K., "IMRT optimization with pseudo-biologic objective function.", 2002.‏
[39]	Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58: 71–96.
[40]	Kaifi JT, Gusani NJ, Jiang Y, et al. Multidisciplinary management of early and locally advanced esophageal cancer. J Clin Gastroenterol 2011; 45: 391–399.
[41]	Lin CY, Huang WY, Jen YM, et al. Dosimetric and efficiency comparison of high-dose radiotherapy for esophageal cancer: volumetric modulated arc therapy versus fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Dis Esophagus 2014; 27: 585–590.
[42]	Cooper JS, Guo MD, Herskovic A, et al. Chemoradiotherapy of locally advanced esophageal cancer: long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized trial (RTOG 85-01). Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. JAMA 1999; 281: 1623–1627.
[43]	Minsky BD, Pajak TF, Ginsberg RJ, et al. INT 0123 (Radiation Therapy Oncology Grou (94–95) phase III trial of combined-modality therapy for esophageal cancer: high-dose versus standard-dose radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 1167–1174.
[44]	Chandra A, Guerrero TM, Liu HH, et al. Feasibility of using intensity-modulated radiotherapy to improve lung sparing in treatment planning for distal esophageal cancer. Radiother Oncol 2005; 77: 247–253.
[45]	Welsh J, Palmer MB, Ajani JA, et al. Esophageal cancer dose escalation using a simultaneous integrated boost technique. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82: 468–474.
[46]	Yu CX. Intensity-modulated arc therapy with dynamic multileaf collimation: an alternative to tomotherapy. Phys Med Biol 1995; 40: 1435–1449.
[47]	Bertelsen A, Hansen CR, Johansen J, et al. Single Arc Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy of head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 2010; 95: 142–148.
[48]	Verbakel WF, Cuijpers JP, Hoffmans D, et al. Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs. conventional IMRT in head-and-neck cancer: a comparative planning and dosimetric study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74: 252–259.
[49]	Shaffer R, Morris WJ, Moiseenko V, et al. Volumetric modulated Arc therapy and conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy for simultaneous maximal intraprostatic boost: a planning comparison study. Clin Oncol 2009; 21: 401–407.
[50]	Hawkins MA, Bedford JL, Warrington AP, et al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy planning for distal oesophageal malignancies. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: 44–52.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Saud. H. Allehyani, Huda. A. Sharyan, Aida. R. Tolba, Rmadan. A. Hassan. (2017). 3DCRT Versus RapidArc in Terms of Iso-Dose Distribution, Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) and Organs at Risk for Esophageal Cancer (EC) Dosimetric Study. American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 5(4), 123-133. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Saud. H. Allehyani; Huda. A. Sharyan; Aida. R. Tolba; Rmadan. A. Hassan. 3DCRT Versus RapidArc in Terms of Iso-Dose Distribution, Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) and Organs at Risk for Esophageal Cancer (EC) Dosimetric Study. Am. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2017, 5(4), 123-133. doi: 10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Saud. H. Allehyani, Huda. A. Sharyan, Aida. R. Tolba, Rmadan. A. Hassan. 3DCRT Versus RapidArc in Terms of Iso-Dose Distribution, Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) and Organs at Risk for Esophageal Cancer (EC) Dosimetric Study. Am J Clin Exp Med. 2017;5(4):123-133. doi: 10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14,
  author = {Saud. H. Allehyani and Huda. A. Sharyan and Aida. R. Tolba and Rmadan. A. Hassan},
  title = {3DCRT Versus RapidArc in Terms of Iso-Dose Distribution, Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) and Organs at Risk for Esophageal Cancer (EC) Dosimetric Study},
  journal = {American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine},
  volume = {5},
  number = {4},
  pages = {123-133},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajcem.20170504.14},
  abstract = {Purpose: To compare (3D-CRT) to RapidArc planning using (LNAC of 6 MV) in terms of dosimetric outcomes of iso-dose distribution, dose volume histogram (DVH), PTV and at risk organs in 5 patients with Esophageal cancer (EC). Methods: Plans were created for 5 patients with EC who had received radical RapidArc treatment from 2012 to 2014 at KAMC (King Abdullah Medical City). Results: RapidArc plan showed a more homogeneous dose distribution in PTV, achieving an HI of 1.112 ± 0.030 compared with 1.096 ± 0.029 in the 3D-CRT plan. However, RapidArc and 3D-CRT achieved nearly equal in both modalities with average value of (0.130 ± 0.052) in RapidArc compared to (0.134 ± 0.054) in 3D-CRT, (p = 0.061) in terms of CI values and Target coverage index (TCI) was (0.093 ± 0.032) in RapidArcand and (0.099 ±0.058) in 3D-CRT, (p = 0.767). Additionally, regarding OARs, the mean and maximum dose in Spinal Cord was lower in RapidArc with a low percentage of the volume receiving low doses. Left and Right Lungs were within tolerance in RapidArc and 3D-CRT. RT. Kidney was lower in RapidArc, while LT Kidney was lower in 3D-CRT. For Heart, the maximum dose was within tolerance criteria in RapidArc but exceeded the criteria in 3D-CRT at 60.97 Gy. For the spinal cord, the maximum dose was notably low and did not exceed 1.91 Gy in RapidArc, while it exceeded the acceptable limit in 3D-CRT. Conclusions: (VMAT) is superior to 3D-CRT in term of PTV, conformity and homogeneity. This study suggests that VMAT class solution is the superior treatment option.},
 year = {2017}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - 3DCRT Versus RapidArc in Terms of Iso-Dose Distribution, Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) and Organs at Risk for Esophageal Cancer (EC) Dosimetric Study
AU  - Saud. H. Allehyani
AU  - Huda. A. Sharyan
AU  - Aida. R. Tolba
AU  - Rmadan. A. Hassan
Y1  - 2017/06/28
PY  - 2017
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14
T2  - American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine
JF  - American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine
JO  - American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine
SP  - 123
EP  - 133
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-8133
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14
AB  - Purpose: To compare (3D-CRT) to RapidArc planning using (LNAC of 6 MV) in terms of dosimetric outcomes of iso-dose distribution, dose volume histogram (DVH), PTV and at risk organs in 5 patients with Esophageal cancer (EC). Methods: Plans were created for 5 patients with EC who had received radical RapidArc treatment from 2012 to 2014 at KAMC (King Abdullah Medical City). Results: RapidArc plan showed a more homogeneous dose distribution in PTV, achieving an HI of 1.112 ± 0.030 compared with 1.096 ± 0.029 in the 3D-CRT plan. However, RapidArc and 3D-CRT achieved nearly equal in both modalities with average value of (0.130 ± 0.052) in RapidArc compared to (0.134 ± 0.054) in 3D-CRT, (p = 0.061) in terms of CI values and Target coverage index (TCI) was (0.093 ± 0.032) in RapidArcand and (0.099 ±0.058) in 3D-CRT, (p = 0.767). Additionally, regarding OARs, the mean and maximum dose in Spinal Cord was lower in RapidArc with a low percentage of the volume receiving low doses. Left and Right Lungs were within tolerance in RapidArc and 3D-CRT. RT. Kidney was lower in RapidArc, while LT Kidney was lower in 3D-CRT. For Heart, the maximum dose was within tolerance criteria in RapidArc but exceeded the criteria in 3D-CRT at 60.97 Gy. For the spinal cord, the maximum dose was notably low and did not exceed 1.91 Gy in RapidArc, while it exceeded the acceptable limit in 3D-CRT. Conclusions: (VMAT) is superior to 3D-CRT in term of PTV, conformity and homogeneity. This study suggests that VMAT class solution is the superior treatment option.
VL  - 5
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Saud. H. Allehyani

Physics Department, College of Applied Science, Umm ALQura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia
Huda. A. Sharyan

Physics Department, College of Applied Science, Umm ALQura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia
Aida. R. Tolba

Physics Department, College of Applied Science, Umm ALQura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia; Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine Department, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
Rmadan. A. Hassan

Physics Department, College of Applied Science, Umm ALQura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia; Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine Department, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Saud. H. Allehyani, Huda. A. Sharyan, Aida. R. Tolba, Rmadan. A. Hassan. (2017). 3DCRT Versus RapidArc in Terms of Iso-Dose Distribution, Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) and Organs at Risk for Esophageal Cancer (EC) Dosimetric Study. American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 5(4), 123-133. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Saud. H. Allehyani; Huda. A. Sharyan; Aida. R. Tolba; Rmadan. A. Hassan. 3DCRT Versus RapidArc in Terms of Iso-Dose Distribution, Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) and Organs at Risk for Esophageal Cancer (EC) Dosimetric Study. Am. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2017, 5(4), 123-133. doi: 10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Saud. H. Allehyani, Huda. A. Sharyan, Aida. R. Tolba, Rmadan. A. Hassan. 3DCRT Versus RapidArc in Terms of Iso-Dose Distribution, Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) and Organs at Risk for Esophageal Cancer (EC) Dosimetric Study. Am J Clin Exp Med. 2017;5(4):123-133. doi: 10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14,
  author = {Saud. H. Allehyani and Huda. A. Sharyan and Aida. R. Tolba and Rmadan. A. Hassan},
  title = {3DCRT Versus RapidArc in Terms of Iso-Dose Distribution, Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) and Organs at Risk for Esophageal Cancer (EC) Dosimetric Study},
  journal = {American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine},
  volume = {5},
  number = {4},
  pages = {123-133},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajcem.20170504.14},
  abstract = {Purpose: To compare (3D-CRT) to RapidArc planning using (LNAC of 6 MV) in terms of dosimetric outcomes of iso-dose distribution, dose volume histogram (DVH), PTV and at risk organs in 5 patients with Esophageal cancer (EC). Methods: Plans were created for 5 patients with EC who had received radical RapidArc treatment from 2012 to 2014 at KAMC (King Abdullah Medical City). Results: RapidArc plan showed a more homogeneous dose distribution in PTV, achieving an HI of 1.112 ± 0.030 compared with 1.096 ± 0.029 in the 3D-CRT plan. However, RapidArc and 3D-CRT achieved nearly equal in both modalities with average value of (0.130 ± 0.052) in RapidArc compared to (0.134 ± 0.054) in 3D-CRT, (p = 0.061) in terms of CI values and Target coverage index (TCI) was (0.093 ± 0.032) in RapidArcand and (0.099 ±0.058) in 3D-CRT, (p = 0.767). Additionally, regarding OARs, the mean and maximum dose in Spinal Cord was lower in RapidArc with a low percentage of the volume receiving low doses. Left and Right Lungs were within tolerance in RapidArc and 3D-CRT. RT. Kidney was lower in RapidArc, while LT Kidney was lower in 3D-CRT. For Heart, the maximum dose was within tolerance criteria in RapidArc but exceeded the criteria in 3D-CRT at 60.97 Gy. For the spinal cord, the maximum dose was notably low and did not exceed 1.91 Gy in RapidArc, while it exceeded the acceptable limit in 3D-CRT. Conclusions: (VMAT) is superior to 3D-CRT in term of PTV, conformity and homogeneity. This study suggests that VMAT class solution is the superior treatment option.},
 year = {2017}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - 3DCRT Versus RapidArc in Terms of Iso-Dose Distribution, Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) and Organs at Risk for Esophageal Cancer (EC) Dosimetric Study
AU  - Saud. H. Allehyani
AU  - Huda. A. Sharyan
AU  - Aida. R. Tolba
AU  - Rmadan. A. Hassan
Y1  - 2017/06/28
PY  - 2017
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14
T2  - American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine
JF  - American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine
JO  - American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine
SP  - 123
EP  - 133
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-8133
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajcem.20170504.14
AB  - Purpose: To compare (3D-CRT) to RapidArc planning using (LNAC of 6 MV) in terms of dosimetric outcomes of iso-dose distribution, dose volume histogram (DVH), PTV and at risk organs in 5 patients with Esophageal cancer (EC). Methods: Plans were created for 5 patients with EC who had received radical RapidArc treatment from 2012 to 2014 at KAMC (King Abdullah Medical City). Results: RapidArc plan showed a more homogeneous dose distribution in PTV, achieving an HI of 1.112 ± 0.030 compared with 1.096 ± 0.029 in the 3D-CRT plan. However, RapidArc and 3D-CRT achieved nearly equal in both modalities with average value of (0.130 ± 0.052) in RapidArc compared to (0.134 ± 0.054) in 3D-CRT, (p = 0.061) in terms of CI values and Target coverage index (TCI) was (0.093 ± 0.032) in RapidArcand and (0.099 ±0.058) in 3D-CRT, (p = 0.767). Additionally, regarding OARs, the mean and maximum dose in Spinal Cord was lower in RapidArc with a low percentage of the volume receiving low doses. Left and Right Lungs were within tolerance in RapidArc and 3D-CRT. RT. Kidney was lower in RapidArc, while LT Kidney was lower in 3D-CRT. For Heart, the maximum dose was within tolerance criteria in RapidArc but exceeded the criteria in 3D-CRT at 60.97 Gy. For the spinal cord, the maximum dose was notably low and did not exceed 1.91 Gy in RapidArc, while it exceeded the acceptable limit in 3D-CRT. Conclusions: (VMAT) is superior to 3D-CRT in term of PTV, conformity and homogeneity. This study suggests that VMAT class solution is the superior treatment option.
VL  - 5
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download