A Dosimetric Comparison of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) with Unflattened Beams to VMAT with Flattened Beams and Tomotherapy for Head and Neck CancerToshiyuki Ogata1*, Hideki Nishimura2, Hiroshi Mayahara2, Aya Harada2, Yoshiro Matsuo2, Masao Nakayama1, Kazuyuki Uehara1, Shinji Tsudou1, Yasuo Ejima3, Ryohei Sasaki3 and Takanobu Okayama1
- *Corresponding Author:
- Toshiyuki Ogata
Division of Medical Technology Support, Kobe Minimally invasive Cancer Center, Kobe, 650-0046, Japan
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date: Decemnber 02, 2015, Accepted date: January 07, 2016, Published date: January 11, 2016
Citation: Ogata T, Nishimura H, Mayahara H, Harada A, Matsuo Y, et al. (2016) A Dosimetric Comparison of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) with Unflattened Beams to VMAT with Flattened Beams and Tomotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer. J Nucl Med Radiat Ther 7:274. doi:10.4172/2155-9619.1000274
Copyright: © 2015 Ogata T, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License; which permits unrestricted use; distribution; and reproduction in any medium; provided the original author and source are credited.
Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the dose distributions and treatment delivery efficiency of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with flattening filter free (FFF) beams (FFF-VMAT) against VMAT with flattening filter (FF) beams (FF-VMAT) and Helical TomoTherapy (HT) for head and neck cancer.
Methods: Ten patients with nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal cancer were chosen for this planning comparison study. Three treatment plans (dual arc FFF-VMAT, dual arc FF-VMAT, and HT) were created for each patient. The three prescription dose levels of the planning target volumes were 69.96, 60, and 54 Gy in 33 fractions, using the simultaneous integrated boost technique. Comparisons of the plan quality were performed by analyzing the homogeneity, conformity, dose to the organs at risk (OARs), the number of monitor units (MUs), and beam-on time (BOT) necessary for delivering the plans.
Results: The target coverage and sparing of the OARs for FFF-VMAT were almost equivalent to those for FFVMAT and HT. Compared to FF-VMAT, FFF-VMAT and HT significantly increased the number of MUs. The BOTs were the same for FFF-VMAT and FF-VMAT but significantly increased for HT.
Conclusion: We here present the first report of FFF-VMAT achieving a comparable plan quality with less delivery time to that of FF-VMAT and HT in head and neck cancer. FFF-VMAT is a highly efficient and feasible option for the treatment of head and neck cancer in clinical practice.