title: Volumetric intensity-modulated Arc (RapidArc) therapy for primary hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 3-D conformal radiotherapy.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  To compare the RapidArc plan for primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with 3-D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans using dosimetric analysis.
  
  
  METHODS
  Nine patients with unresectable HCC were enrolled in this study. Dosimetric values for RapidArc, IMRT, and 3DCRT were calculated for total doses of 45~50.4 Gy using 1.8 Gy/day. The parameters included the conformal index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and hot spot (V₁₀₇%) for the planned target volume (PTV) as well as the monitor units (MUs) for plan efficiency, the mean dose (Dmean) for the organs at risk (OAR) and the maximal dose at 1% volume (D1%) for the spinal cord. The percentage of the normal liver volume receiving ≥ 40, > 30, > 20, and > 10 Gy (V₄₀ Gy, V₃₀ Gy, V₂₀ Gy, and V₁₀ Gy) and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were also evaluated to determine liver toxicity.
  
  
  RESULTS
  All three methods achieved comparable homogeneity for the PTV. RapidArc achieved significantly better CI and V107% values than IMRT or 3DCRT (p < 0.05). The MUs were significantly lower for RapidArc (323.8 ± 60.7) and 3DCRT (322.3 ± 28.6) than for IMRT (1165.4 ± 170.7) (p < 0.001). IMRT achieved a significantly lower Dmean of the normal liver than did 3DCRT or RapidArc (p = 0.001). 3DCRT had higher V₄₀Gy and V₃₀ Gy values for the normal liver than did RapidArc or IMRT. Although the V10 Gy to the normal liver was higher with RapidArc (75.8 ± 13.1%) than with 3DCRT or IMRT (60.5 ± 10.2% and 57.2 ± 10.0%, respectively; p < 0.01), the NTCP did not differ significantly between RapidArc (4.38 ± 2.69) and IMRT (3.98 ± 3.00) and both were better than 3DCRT (7.57 ± 4.36) (p = 0.02).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  RapidArc provided favorable tumor coverage compared with IMRT or 3DCRT, but RapidArc is not superior to IMRT in terms of liver protection. Further studies are needed to establish treatment outcome differences between the three approaches.
authors.affiliation: Dept, of Biomedical Imaging & Radiological Sciences, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei 11221, Taiwan.
authors.forename: Yu-Cheng
authors.initials: YC
authors.lastname: Kuo
authors.forename: Ying-Ming
authors.initials: YM
authors.lastname: Chiu
authors.forename: Wen-Pin
authors.initials: WP
authors.lastname: Shih
authors.forename: Hsiao-Wei
authors.initials: HW
authors.lastname: Yu
authors.forename: Chia-Wen
authors.initials: CW
authors.lastname: Chen
authors.forename: Pei-Fong
authors.initials: PF
authors.lastname: Wong
authors.forename: Wei-Chan
authors.initials: WC
authors.lastname: Lin
authors.forename: Jeng-Jong
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: Hwang
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D006528:Carcinoma, Hepatocellular / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D004307:Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation; D006801:Humans; D021621:Imaging, Three-Dimensional; D008113:Liver Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011336:Probability; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D011874:Radiometry / Q000379:methods; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods; D020266:Radiotherapy, Conformal / Q000379:methods*; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated / Q000379:methods*