Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 21, Number 6, 2016

Treatment planning study of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and three dimensional field-in-field techniques for left chest-wall cancers with regional lymph nodes

Heping Xu, Gillian Hatcher

Summary:

Aim

This study aims to investigate whether there are dosimetric advantages to using VMAT (Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy) for left-sided chest-wall patients over the three-dimensional conformal field-in-field (FinF) technique.

Background

There is a lack of dosimetric studies dedicated for chest-wall patients. Potential dosimetric advantage could be obtained using VMAT due to complex geometry of PTVs (Planning Target Volumes) and OARs (Organs at Risk) in chest-wall and lymph nodes.

Materials and methods

VMAT and FinF plans were generated and evaluated based on DVHs (Dose Volume Histograms) for both PTVs and OARs for 22 left-sided chest-wall patients with involved regional nodes. PTV HIs (Homogeneity Indices) and CIs (Conformity Indices), and EUDs (Equivalent Uniform Doses) for PTVs and OARs were also evaluated for comparisons between VMAT and FinF.

Results

FinF planning met PTV criteria adequately in all cases except two. In these two cases, VMAT was able to meet PTV criteria adequately. VMAT demonstrated significant reduction in left lung V20 Gy in chest-wall patients compared to FinF plans. The volumes of the right lung and right breast receiving 5 Gy were much higher in VMAT than those in FinF for all patients.

Conclusions

Compared to the FinF technique, there is a generally limited benefit using VMAT for left-sided chest-wall patients due to large low-dose-bath to OARs with insignificant improvement in PTV coverage. In case where FinF planning cannot meet dose constrains, VMAT provides a viable option. The use of VMAT planning over the FinF technique in chest-wall cancers should be carefully analyzed on an individual basis.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2016; 21(6) : 517-524


« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2