VMAT and step-and-shoot IMRT in head and neck cancer: a comparative plan analysis.

PURPOSE

Rotational IMRT is a new technique, whose value still has to be assessed. We evaluated its adequacy for the treatment of head and neck (H&N) cancer compared to the well-established step-and-shoot IMRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 15 patients, who were treated with either IMRT (13 patients) or VMAT (2 patients) in the H&N region, were chosen. For each patient, a treatment plan with the respective other technique was calculated. To compare the resulting dose distributions, the dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were evaluated. To quantify the differences, a new quality index (QI) was introduced, as a measure of the planning target volume (PTV) coverage and homogeneity. A conformity function (CF) was defined to estimate normal tissue sparing.

RESULTS

The QI for VMAT amounts to 36.3, whereas for IMRT the mean value is 66.5, indicating better PTV coverage as well as less overdosage for the rotational technique. While the sparing of organs at risk (OAR) was similar for both techniques, the CF shows a significantly better sparing of healthy tissue for all doses with VMAT treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

VMAT results in dose distributions for H&N patients that are at least comparable with treatments performed with step-and-shoot IMRT. Two new tools to quantify the quality of dose distributions are presented and have proven to be useful.