» Articles » PMID: 37084071

Helical Tomotherapy and Two Types of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy: Dosimetric and Clinical Comparison for Several Cancer Sites

Abstract

Radiotherapy accelerators have undergone continuous technological developments. We investigated the differences between Radixact™ and VMAT treatment plans. Sixty patients were included in this study. Dosimetric comparison between the Radixact™ and VMAT plans was performed for six cancer sites: whole-brain, head and neck, lymphoma, lung, prostate, and rectum. The VMAT plans were generated with two Elekta linear accelerators (Synergy and Versa HD™). The planning target volume (PTV) coverage, organs-at-risk dose constraints, and four dosimetric indexes were considered. The deliverability of the plans was assessed using quality assurance (gamma index evaluation) measurements; clinical judgment was included in the assessment. The mean AAPM TG218 (3%-2 mm, global normalization) gamma index values were 99.4%, 97.8%, and 96.6% for Radixact™, Versa HD™, and Synergy®, respectively. Radixact™ performed better than Versa HD™ in terms of dosimetric indexes, hippocampi D, spinal cord D, rectum V, bladder V, and V. Versa HD™ saved more of the (lungs-PTV) V and (lungs-PTV) D, heart D, breasts V, and bowel V. Regarding Synergy, the head and neck Radixact™ plan saved more of the parotid gland, oral cavity, and supraglottic larynx. From a clinical point of view, for the head and neck, prostate, and rectal sites, the Radixact™ and Versa HD™ plans were similar; Radixact™ plans were preferable for the head and neck and rectum to Synergy plans. The quality of linac plans has improved, and differences with tomotherapy have decreased. However, tomotherapy continues to be an essential add-on in multi-machine departments.

Citing Articles

Long-term Outcome After Helical Tomotherapy Following Breast Conserving Surgery for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Hauswald H, Schempp M, Liebig P, Hoefel S, Debus J, Huber P Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2024; 23:15330338241264847.

PMID: 39043035 PMC: 11271168. DOI: 10.1177/15330338241264847.

References
1.
Mackie T, Balog J, Ruchala K, Shepard D, Aldridge S, Fitchard E . Tomotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 1999; 9(1):108-17. DOI: 10.1016/s1053-4296(99)80058-7. View

2.
Myers P, Mavroidis P, Papanikolaou N, Stathakis S . Comparing conformal, arc radiotherapy and helical tomotherapy in craniospinal irradiation planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014; 15(5):4724. PMC: 5711087. DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v15i5.4724. View

3.
Renard-Oldrini S, Guinement L, Salleron J, Brunaud C, Huger S, Grandgirard N . [Dosimetric comparaison between VMAT and tomotherapy with para-aortic irradiation for cervix carcinoma]. Cancer Radiother. 2015; 19(8):733-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2015.05.031. View

4.
Rong Y, Evans J, Xu-Welliver M, Pickett C, Jia G, Chen Q . Dosimetric evaluation of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, and helical tomotherapy for hippocampal-avoidance whole brain radiotherapy. PLoS One. 2015; 10(4):e0126222. PMC: 4404135. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126222. View

5.
Stromberger C, Wlodarczyk W, Marnitz S, Jamil B, Budach V, Raguse J . Simultaneous Integrated Boost (SIB): RapidArc and Tomotherapy Plan Comparison for Unilateral and Bilateral Neck Irradiation. Anticancer Res. 2015; 35(5):2991-7. View