Comparison of Dosimetric Benefits of Three Precise Radiotherapy Techniques in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Patients Using a Priority-Classified Plan Optimization Model

Helical tomotherapy and two types of volumetric modulated arc therapy: dosimetric and clinical comparison for several cancer sites

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_100%, spinal cord D_max, rectum V_{38.4  Gy}, bladder V_{30 Gy}, and V_{40 Gy}. Versa HD™ saved more of the (lungs-PTV) V_{5 Gy} and (lungs-PTV) D_mean, heart D_mean, breasts V_{4 Gy}, and bowel V_{45 Gy}. 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.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy versus tomotherapy for late T-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Purpose

To compare the dosimetric parameters and clinical outcomes between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and tomotherapy for treating late T-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

Methods

Patients with non-metastatic late T-stage NPC who received definitive radiotherapy with tomotherapy or VMAT were selected. 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control the balance of confounding factors. The dosimetric parameters and clinical outcomes were compared.

Results

A total of 171 patients were enrolled before matching, with 61 patients in the VMAT group and 110 patients in the tomotherapy group. In the post-PSM cohort, 54 sub-pairs of 108 patients were included after matching. Tomotherapy was superior to VMAT in the dosimetric parameters of planning target volumes, brainstem, spinal cord, lenses, and parotid glands but inferior in the optic nerves and optic chiasm. The tomotherapy group had a lower incidence of grade ≥ 3 acute mucositis (22.2% vs. 40.7%, p = 0.038) and a higher rate of complete response (83.3% vs. 66.7%, p = 0.046) after radiotherapy. However, there were no significant differences in locoregional failure-free survival (p = 0.375), distant metastasis-free survival (p = 0.529), or overall survival (p = 0.975) between the two groups.

Conclusion

Tomotherapy is superior to VMAT in terms of most dosimetric parameters, with less acute mucositis and better short-term efficacy. There are no significant differences in the survival outcomes between the VMAT and tomotherapy groups.