Impact of gantry rotation time on plan quality and dosimetric verification--volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To compare plan quality criteria and dosimetric accuracy of step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ss-IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) using two different gantry rotation times.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective planning study based on 20 patients was comprised of 10 prostate cancer (PC) and 10 head and neck (HN) cancer cases. Each plan contained two target volumes: a primary planning target volume (PTV) and a boost volume. For each patient, one ss-IMRT plan and two VMAT plans at 90 s (VMAT90) and 120 s (VMAT120) per arc were generated with the Pinnacle© planning system. Two arcs were provided for the PTV plans and a single arc for boost volumes. Dosimetric verification of the plans was performed using a 2D ionization chamber array placed in a full scatter phantom.

RESULTS

VMAT reduced delivery time and monitor units for both treatment sites compared to IMRT. VMAT120 vs. VMAT90 increased delivery time and monitor units in PC plans without improving plan quality. For HN cases, VMAT120 provided comparable organs at risk sparing and better target coverage and conformity than VMAT90. In the VMAT plan verification, an average of 97.1% of the detector points passed the 3 mm, 3% γ criterion, while in IMRT verification it was 98.8%.

CONCLUSION

VMAT90, VMAT120, and IMRT achieved comparable treatment plans. Slower gantry movement in VMAT120 plans only improves dosimetric quality for highly complex targets.