Rapole Pragna Sagar, Karunanithi Gunaseelan, Kandasamy Saravanan, Prabhu Sathiya, Kumar Ram, Vivekanandam S
Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), India. Email: gunapgi@ gmail.com
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2018 Sep 26;19(9):2499-2506. doi: 10.22034/APJCP.2018.19.9.2499.
Objective: To evaluate the dosimetric parameters of Simultaneous Integrated Boost in the treatment of malignant gliomas and compare the SIB plans of VMAT and IMRT. Methodology: CT and MRI of 28 patients were used for generating SIB plans with VMAT and IMRT. A dose of 2Gy per fraction was prescribed to the CPTV and 2.4Gy to the GPTV for a total of 25 fractions. The plans were accepted only if they met the set of planning objectives defined in the protocol. Results: We could achieve the planning objectives in all the SIB plans. Although GPTV coverage was statistically better in VMAT (98.67% vs 98.19% ;p=0.024) the difference is not clinically meaningful. The conformity index for GPTV was higher in IMRT (0.83 vs 0.76; p=0.001). The coverage of CPTV was better in IMRT (97.88% vs 96.87%; p=0.021). But the conformity index of CPTVannulus was higher in VMAT (0.72 vs 0.67; p=0.01). There was no difference in homogeneity index of GPTV and CPTV annulus between the plans. The mean dose received by normal brain was higher in IMRT (28Gy vs 24.2Gy; p<0.001). Ipsilateral optic nerve has received lesser Dmax in IMRT (44.2Gy vs 46.95Gy; p=0.02). No difference was seen in Dmax of brainstem, optic chiasm, contralateral optic nerve. The treatment times and monitor units were significantly less in VMAT. Conclusion: SIB is dosimetrically feasible for hypofractionation in malignant gliomas using IMRT and VMAT. IMRT plans had better boost conformity, lower ipsilateral optic nerve and brainstem maximum doses compared to VMAT. Whereas, VMAT had better coverage, better overall PTV conformity, lower normal brain mean dose, lower monitor units and lesser treatment times. Although planning of VMAT is cumbersome and time consuming, the advantage of reducing treatment time is beneficial to the patients’ comfort and better managing of patient load in high volume centres.
评估同步整合加量在恶性胶质瘤治疗中的剂量学参数,并比较容积调强放疗(VMAT)和调强放疗(IMRT)的同步整合加量计划。方法:利用28例患者的CT和MRI图像生成VMAT和IMRT的同步整合加量计划。处方剂量为CTV 2Gy/分次,GTV 2.4Gy/分次,共25次。只有当计划符合方案中定义的一组计划目标时才被接受。结果:所有同步整合加量计划均能达到计划目标。虽然VMAT中GTV的覆盖率在统计学上更好(98.67%对98.19%;p = 0.024),但差异在临床上无意义。IMRT中GTV的适形指数更高(0.83对0.76;p = 0.001)。IMRT中CTV的覆盖率更好(97.88%对96.87%;p = 0.021)。但VMAT中CTV环的适形指数更高(0.72对0.67;p = 0.01)。计划之间GTV和CTV环的均匀性指数无差异。IMRT中正常脑接受的平均剂量更高(28Gy对24.2Gy;p < 0.001)。IMRT中同侧视神经接受的Dmax较低(44.2Gy对46.95Gy;p = 0.02)。脑干、视交叉、对侧视神经的Dmax未见差异。VMAT的治疗时间和监测单位明显更少。结论:同步整合加量在使用IMRT和VMAT进行恶性胶质瘤的大分割放疗中在剂量学上是可行的。与VMAT相比,IMRT计划具有更好的加量适形性、更低的同侧视神经和脑干最大剂量。而VMAT具有更好的覆盖率、更好总体靶区适形性、更低的正常脑平均剂量、更低的监测单位和更短的治疗时间。虽然VMAT计划繁琐且耗时,但减少治疗时间的优势有利于患者的舒适度以及在大容量中心更好地管理患者负荷。