Can volumetric modulated arc radiation therapy reduce organ at risk dose in stage 4 sinonasal tumors in dogs treated with boost irradiation?
Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) introduced marked changes to cancer treatment in animals by reducing dose to organs at risk (OAR). As the next technological step, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has advantages (increased degrees-of-freedom, faster delivery) compared to fixed-fie...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/a8675cb7fcac40718dbd76a6e486cbba |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) introduced marked changes to cancer treatment in animals by reducing dose to organs at risk (OAR). As the next technological step, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has advantages (increased degrees-of-freedom, faster delivery) compared to fixed-field IMRT. Our objective was to investigate a possible advantage of VMAT over IMRT in terms of lower OAR doses in advanced-disease sinonasal tumors in dogs treated with simultaneously-integrated boost radiotherapy. A retrospective, analytical, observational study design was applied using 10 pre-existing computed tomography datasets on dogs with stage 4 sinonasal tumors. Each dataset was planned with both, 5-field IMRT and 2 arc VMAT with 10x4.83 Gy to the gross tumor volume and 10x4.2 Gy to the planning target volume. Adequate target dose coverage and normal tissue complication probability of brain ≤5% was required. Dose constraints aspired to were D60 <15 Gy for eyes, D2 <35.4 Gy for corneae, and Dmean <20 Gy for lacrimal glands. OAR dose was statistically significantly higher in IMRT plans than in VMAT plans. Median eye D60% was 18.5 Gy (interquartile range (IQR) 17.5) versus 16.1 Gy (IQR 7.4) (p = 0.007), median lacrimal gland dose 21.8 Gy (IQR 20.5) versus 18.6 Gy (IQR 7.0) (p = 0.013), and median cornea D2% 45.5 Gy (IQR 6.8) versus 39.9 Gy (IQR 10.0) (p<0.005) for IMRT versus VMAT plans, respectively. Constraints were met in 21/40 eyes, 7/40 corneae, and 24/40 lacrimal glands. Median delivery time was significantly longer for IMRT plans than for VMAT plans (p<0.01). Based on these results, VMAT plans were found to be superior in sparing doses to eyes, lacrimal glands, corneae. However, not all ocular OAR constraints could be met while ensuring adequate dose coverage and restricting brain toxicity risk for both planning techniques. |
|---|