title: Implementation of Constant Dose Rate and Constant Angular Spacing Intensity-modulated Arc Therapy for Cervical Cancer by Using a Conventional Linear Accelerator.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can only be implemented on the new generation linacs such as the Varian Trilogy® and Elekta Synergy®. This prevents most existing linacs from delivering VMAT. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using a conventional linear accelerator delivering constant dose rate and constant angular spacing intensity-modulated arc therapy (CDR-CAS-IMAT) for treating cervical cancer.
  
  
  METHODS
  Twenty patients with cervical cancer previously treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using Varian Clinical 23EX were retreated using CDR-CAS-IMAT. The planning target volume (PTV) was set as 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. Plans were evaluated based on the ability to meet the dose volume histogram. The homogeneity index (HI), target volume conformity index (CI), the dose to organs at risk, radiation delivery time, and monitor units (MUs) were also compared. The paired t-test was used to analyze the two data sets. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0 software.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Compared to the IMRT group, the CDR-CAS-IMAT group showed better PTV CI (0.85 ± 0.03 vs. 0.81 ± 0.03, P = 0.001), clinical target volume CI (0.46 ± 0.05 vs. 0.43 ± 0.05, P = 0.001), HI (0.09 ± 0.02 vs. 0.11 ± 0.02, P = 0.005) and D95 (5196.33 ± 28.24 cGy vs. 5162.63 ± 31.12 cGy, P = 0.000), and cord D2 (3743.8 ± 118.7 cGy vs. 3806.2 ± 98.7 cGy, P = 0.017) and rectum V40 (41.9 ± 6.1% vs. 44.2 ± 4.8%, P = 0.026). Treatment time (422.7 ± 46.7 s vs. 84.6 ± 7.8 s, P = 0.000) and the total plan Mus (927.4 ± 79.1 vs. 787.5 ± 78.5, P = 0.000) decreased by a factor of 0.8 and 0.15, respectively. The IMRT group plans were superior to the CDR-CAS-IMAT group plans considering decreasing bladder V50 (17.4 ± 4.5% vs. 16.6 ± 4.2%, P = 0.049), bowel V30 (39.6 ± 6.5% vs. 36.6 ± 7.5%, P = 0.008), and low-dose irradiation volume; there were no significant differences in other statistical indexes.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Patients with cervical cancer treated with CDR-CAS-IMAT using Varian Clinical 23EX can get equivalent or superior dose distribution compared to those treated with IMRT. CDR-CAS-IMAT has a less treatment time and MU, which can reduce the uncertainty factor and patient discomfort in treatment.
authors.forename: Ruo-Hui
authors.initials: RH
authors.lastname: Zhang
authors.forename: Xiao-Mei
authors.initials: XM
authors.lastname: Fan
authors.forename: Wen-Wen
authors.initials: WW
authors.lastname: Bai
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiotherapy, The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei 050011, China.
authors.forename: Yan-Kun
authors.initials: YK
authors.lastname: Cao
mesh_terms: D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D010315:Particle Accelerators; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated / Q000379:methods*; D012984:Software; D002583:Uterine Cervical Neoplasms / Q000628:therapy*
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2009 Nov 7;54(21):6439-56
references.pmid: 19820268
references.citation: Med Phys. 2008 Dec;35(12):5233-41
references.pmid: 19175082
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Nov 15;72(4):996-1001
references.pmid: 18455326
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Nov 1;60(3):794-806
references.pmid: 15465196
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 1995 Sep;40(9):1435-49
references.pmid: 8532757
references.citation: Med Phys. 2007 Feb;34(2):464-70
references.pmid: 17388162
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 May 1;65(1):1-7
references.pmid: 16618572
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Oct 1;57(2):543-52
references.pmid: 12957268
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 May 1;56(1):83-8
references.pmid: 12694826
references.citation: Radiother Oncol. 2010 May;95(2):142-8
references.pmid: 20188427
references.citation: Med Phys. 2008 Jan;35(1):310-7
references.pmid: 18293586
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2003 Apr 21;48(8):1075-89
references.pmid: 12741503
references.citation: Med Phys. 2007 Apr;34(4):1514-20
references.pmid: 17500482
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Feb 1;64(2):333-42
references.pmid: 16414369
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Nov 15;57(4):1019-32
references.pmid: 14575833
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2008 Nov 21;53(22):6291-303
references.pmid: 18936519