A comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of Stage I-II nasal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma.

This article is aimed to compare the dosimetric differences between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for Stage I-II nasal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma (NNKTL). Ten patients with Stage I-II NNKTL treated with IMRT were replanned with VMAT (2 arcs). The prescribed dose of the planning target volume (PTV) was 50Gy in 25 fractions. The VMAT plans with the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (Version 8.6.15) were based on an Eclipse treatment planning system; the monitor units (MUs) and treatment time (T) were scored to measure the expected treatment efficiency. All the 10 patients under the study were subject to comparisons regarding the quality of target coverage, the efficiency of delivery, and the exposure of normal adjacent organs at risk (OARs). The study shows that VMAT was associated with a better conformal index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) (both p < 0.05) but slightly higher dose to OARs than IMRT. The MUs with VMAT (650.80 ± 24.59) were fewer than with IMRT (1300.10 ± 57.12) (relative reduction of 49.94%, p = 0.00) when using 2-Gy dose fractions. The treatment time with VMAT (3.20 ± 0.02 minutes) was shorter than with IMRT (7.38 ± 0.18 minutes) (relative reduction of 56.64%, p = 0.00). We found that VMAT and IMRT both provide satisfactory target dosimetric coverage and OARs sparing clinically. Likely to deliver a bit higher dose to OARs, VMAT in comparison with IMRT, is still a better choice for treatment of patients with Stage I-II NNKTL, thanks to better dose distribution, fewer MUs, and shorter delivery time.