title: Comparison of fixed-beam IMRT, helical tomotherapy, and IMPT for selected cases.
abstract: A growing number of advanced intensity modulated treatment techniques is becoming available. In this study, the specific strengths and weaknesses of four techniques, static and dynamic multileaf collimator (MLC), conventional linac-based IMRT, helical tomotherapy (HT), and spot-scanning proton therapy (IMPT) are investigated in the framework of biological, EUD-based dose optimization. All techniques were implemented in the same in-house dose optimization tool. Monte Carlo dose computation was used in all cases. All dose-limiting, normal tissue objectives were treated as hard constraints so as to facilitate comparability. Five patient cases were selected to offer each technique a chance to show its strengths: a deep-seated prostate case (for 15 MV linac-based IMRT), a pediatric case (for IMPT), an extensive head-and-neck case (for HT), a lung tumor (for HT), and an optical neurinoma (for noncoplanar linac-based IMRT with a miniMLC). The plans were compared by dose statistics and equivalent uniform dose metrics. All techniques delivered results that were comparable with respect to target coverage and the most dose-limiting normal tissues. Static MLC IMRT struggled to achieve sufficient target coverage at the same level of dose homogeneity in the lung case. IMPT gained the greatest advantage when lung sparing was important, but did not significantly reduce the risk of nearby organs. Tomotherapy and dynamic MLC IMRT showed mostly the same performance. Despite the apparent conceptual differences, all four techniques fare equally well for standard patient cases. The absence of relevant differences is in part due to biological optimization, which offers more freedom to shape the dose than do, e.g., dose volume histogram constraints. Each technique excels for certain classes of highly complex cases, and hence the various modalities should be viewed as complementary, rather than competing.
authors.affiliation: Abteilung für Medizinische Physik, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. jan.muzik@med.uni-tuebingen.de
authors.forename: Jan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Muzik
authors.forename: Martin
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Soukup
authors.forename: Markus
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Alber
mesh_terms: D001822:Body Burden; D003198:Computer Simulation; D006801:Humans; D008954:Models, Biological; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D011874:Radiometry / Q000379:methods*; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D020266:Radiotherapy, Conformal / Q000145:classification* / Q000379:methods*; D012062:Relative Biological Effectiveness; D016896:Treatment Outcome