SU‐E‐T‐808: Volumetric Modulated Arc Radiotherapy Vs. Intensity‐Modulated Radiotherapy for Early‐Stage Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Dosimetric Study

Abstract

Purpose:To compare volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) technique with fixed‐gantry intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) technique for early‐stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Methods:CT datasets of ten patients with early‐stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma were included. Dual‐arc VMAT and nine‐field IMRT plans were generated for each case, and were then compared in terms of planning‐target‐volume (PTV) coverage, conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI), as well as organ‐at‐risk (OAR) sparing, planning time, monitor units (MUs) and delivery time.Results:Compared with the IMRT plans, the VMAT plans provided comparable HI and CI of PTVnx (PTV of primary tumor of nasopharynx), superior CI and inferior HI of PTVnd (PTV of lymph nodes), as well as superior CI and comparable HI of PTV60 (high‐risk PTV). The VMAT plans provided better sparing of the spinal cord, oral cavity and normal tissue, but inferior sparing of the brainstem planning OAR volume (PRV), larynx and parotids, as well as comparable sparing of the spinal cord PRV, brainstem, lenses, optic nerves, optic chiasm. Moreover, the average planning time (181.6 ± 36.0 min) for the VMAT plans was 171% more than that of the IMRT plans (68.1 ± 7.6 min). The MUs of the VMAT plans (609 ± 43) were 70% lower than those of the IMRT plans (2071 ± 262), while the average delivery time (2.2 ± 0.1 min) was 66% less than that of the IMRT plans (6.6 ± 0.4 min).Conclusion:Compared with the IMRT technique, the VMAT technique can achieve similar or slightly superior target dose distribution, with no significant advantages on OAR sparing, and it can achieve significant reductions of MUs and delivery time.