Abstract

PurposeTo evaluate the dosimetric impacts of flattening filter-free (FFF) beams in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for sinonasal cancer.MethodsFor fourteen cases, IMRT and VMAT planning was performed using 6-MV photon beams with both conventional flattened and FFF modes. The four types of plans were compared in terms of target dose homogeneity and conformity, organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing, number of monitor units (MUs) per fraction, treatment time and pure beam-on time.ResultsFFF beams led to comparable target dose homogeneity, conformity, increased number of MUs and lower doses to the spinal cord, brainstem and normal tissue, compared with flattened beams in both IMRT and VMAT. FFF beams in IMRT resulted in improvements by up to 5.4% for sparing of the contralateral optic structures, with shortened treatment time by 9.5%. However, FFF beams provided comparable overall OAR sparing and treatment time in VMAT. With FFF mode, VMAT yielded inferior homogeneity and superior conformity compared with IMRT, with comparable overall OAR sparing and significantly shorter treatment time.ConclusionsUsing FFF beams in IMRT and VMAT is feasible for the treatment of sinonasal cancer. Our results suggest that the delivery mode of FFF beams may play an encouraging role with better sparing of contralateral optic OARs and treatment efficiency in IMRT, but yield comparable results in VMAT.

Highlights

  • Sinonasal cancers (SNCs) are uncommon, accounting for only 3–5% of all head and neck malignancies [1,2,3]

  • flattening filter-free (FFF) beams in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) resulted in improvements by up to 5.4% for sparing of the contralateral optic structures, with shortened treatment time by 9.5%

  • Using FFF beams in IMRT and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is feasible for the treatment of sinonasal cancer

Read more

Summary

Methods

IMRT and VMAT planning was performed using 6-MV photon beams with both conventional flattened and FFF modes. The four types of plans were compared in terms of target dose homogeneity and conformity, organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing, number of monitor units (MUs) per fraction, treatment time and pure beam-on time

Results
Conclusions
Introduction
Ethics statement
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call