A dosimetric comparison of non-coplanar IMRT versus Helical Tomotherapy for nasal cavity and paranasal sinus cancer.
OBJECTIVE
To determine if there are clinically significant differences between the dosimetry of sinus tumors delivered by non-coplanar LINAC-based IMRT techniques and Helical Tomotherapy (HT). HT is capable of delivering highly conformal and uniform target dosimetry. However, HT lacks non-coplanar capability, which is commonly used for linear accelerator-based IMRT for nasal cavity and paranasal sinus tumors.


METHODS
We selected 10 patients with representative early and advanced nasal cavity and paranasal sinus malignancies treated with a preoperative dose of 50 Gy/25 fractions without coverage of the cervical lymphatics for dosimetric comparison. Each plan was independently optimized using either Corvus inverse treatment planning system, commissioned for a Varian 2300 CD linear accelerator with 1cm multileaf collimator (MLC) leaves, or the HT inverse treatment planning system. A non-coplanar seven field technique was used in all Corvus plans with five mid-sagittal fields and two anterior oblique fields as described by Claus et al. [F. Claus, W. De Gersem, C. De Wagter, et al., An implementation strategy for IMRT of ethmoid sinus cancer and bilateral sparing of the optic pathways, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51 (2001) 318-331], whereas only coplanar beamlets were used in HT planning. Dose plans were compared using DVHs, the minimum PTV dose to 1cm3 of the PTV, a uniformity index of planned treatment volume (PTV), and a comprehensive quality index (CQI) based on the maximum dose to optical structures, parotids and the brainstem which were deemed as the most critical adjacent structures.


RESULTS
Both planning systems showed comparable PTV dose coverage, but HT had significantly higher uniformity (p<0.01) inside the PTV. The CQI for all organs at risk were equivalent except ipsilateral lenses and eyes, which received statistically lower dose from HT plans (p<0.01).


CONCLUSIONS
Overall HT provided equivalent or slightly better normal structure avoidance with a more uniform PTV dose for nasal cavity and paranasal sinus cancer treatment than non-coplanar LINAC-based IMRT. The disadvantage of coplanar geometry in HT is apparently counterbalanced by the larger number of fields.
Sheng
Ke
K
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA. ks2mc@virginia.edu
Molloy
Janelle A
JA
Larner
James M
JM
Read
Paul W
PW
D006801:Humans; D009669:Nose Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D011874:Radiometry; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated; D036542:Tomography, Spiral Computed