METHODS
IMRT and VMAT plans generated for 15 mediastinal lymphoma patients. Sandglass technique consists
of two full arc with avoidance sectors (240°-300° and 60°-120°), butterfly technique with five static fields
(0°, 40°, 160°, 190°, and 330°), and rainbow technique has five static fields (0°, 20°, 40°, 320°, and 345°).
The prescribed treatment dose was 30.6 Gy in 17 fractions. Dosimetric data were compared using crosspaired
sample t-test.
RESULTS
Lung V5 doses were 41.62-50.74%, V20 doses were 12.72-16.21%, heart mean doses were between 454
and 509 cGy, spinal cord max point doses were between 2210 and 2798 cGy, esophagus mean doses were
between 1309 and 1409 cGyHI, CI, and MU values were calculated. Lung V20, mean esophagus, and mean
heart and spinal cord max. point doses were observed significantly lower at sandglass technique (p=0.001,
p=0.02, p=0.013, and p=0.001). CI is significantly better than other two techniques (rainbow p=0.000 and
butterfly p=0.001). On the other hand, lung V5 doses significantly lower at rainbow technique (p=0.035),
besides, HI has significant advantage with respect to others. Sandglass has lower MU value with 484 MU.
CONCLUSION
Sandglass technique has remarkable advantageous for lung V20, heart, esophagus, spinal cord, CI, and
MU. Treatment plans with lower critical organ doses have great importance in terms of late side effects
in patients with long survival expectancy. Sandglass plan was preferable for mediastinal lymphoma.
Keywords: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy; lymphoma; mediastinum; volumetric arc therapy
Standard three-dimensional conformal RT (3DCRT)
techniques include anterior-posterior/posterior-
anterior field which are with variation of energies
for optimal dose distribution. According to dosimetric
studies, advanced RT techniques such as intensity-
modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) have better tumor
coverage and reduced toxicity to organs at risk (OARs)
with respect to 3D-CRT.[
We herein report an assessment of comparative
planning studies of VMAT and IMRT techniques.
IMRT plans have five fields with butterfly and rainbows
arrangement. VMAT consists of two full arcs
with total 120° avoidance sectors to reduce low-dose
bath to lungs.
VMAT and IMRT plans were optimized on Eclipse TPS station Version 13.6 (Varian, Palo Alto, USA) and using same optimization objectives for them. Six MV beam energy was used for all plans and dose distributions calculated using anisotropic analytical algorithm with 2.5 mm grid size. Three different RT plans were generated for each patient.
Butterfly and butterfly technique had five gantry
static fields with (0°, 40°, 160°, 190°, and 330°) and
(0°, 20°, 40°, 320°, and 345°) angle distributions. Sunglass
technique has two arcs with counterclockwise
from 179° to 181° and clockwise 181°-179° and optimized
with avoiding sectors between 240°-300° and
60°-120° (Fig.
Plan Evaluation
Dose coverage, monitor unit (MU), and OAR doses
were compared between plans. Dose-volume histograms
were used for quantitative evaluations. Dosimetric
parameters of OARs were as follows; lungs V5,
lungs V20, spinal cord Dmax, mean esophagus, and
heart doses. Analyzed parameters for PTV were; volume
of PTVs, the treated volume of the prescribed isodose
line (PTV95), the portion of the PTV within the
prescribed isodose line (PTVPIV), the minimum doses
delivered to 5% of the PTV (D5%), and the minimum
doses delivered to 95% of the PTV (D95%).
The conformity index is defined as a ratio between
the volume covered by the reference isodose according
to ICRU is 95% isodose and the target volume and optimal
conformity index (CI)=1, calculated using formula
CI=(PTVPIV)2/(PTV*PIV) as described by Paddick.[
PTV Coverage
The mean PTV volume was 749.78 cm3 and coverage
was optimally equal for all techniques. Sandglass technique
is superior in terms of CI which is closer to 1
(0.88) (range, 0.79-0.94). Rainbow technique suggested
difference in favor of HI (0.91) (range, 0.90-0.93). Due
to technical difference of VMAT to IMRT, sandglass
technique has advantage in terms of MU. Table
Fiandra et al.[
Goodman et al.[
Filippi et al.[
Peer-review: Externally peer-reviewed.
Conflict of Interest: All authors declared no conflict of interest.
Ethics Committee Approval: The study is a dosimetric data study, there is no Ethics Committee Approval.
Financial Support: This study has received no financial support.
Authorship contributions: Concept - S.Y., Z.G.; Design - F.A.; Supervision - F.A.; Funding - S.Y.; Materials - S.Y.; Data collection and/or processing - S.Y.; Data analysis and/ or interpretation - S.Y., Z.G.; Literature search - S.Y., Z.G.; Writing - S.Y.; Critical review - F.A.