These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Dosimetric comparison of four radiotherapy techniques for stage III non‑small cell lung cancer.
    Author: Li C, Luo H, Song W, Hu Y, Li J, Cai Z.
    Journal: Oncol Lett; 2023 Aug; 26(2):347. PubMed ID: 37427336.
    Abstract:
    The present study was implemented to compare the dosimetric parameters of the target dose coverage and critical structures in the treatment planning of four radiotherapy techniques [namely, three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), hybrid IMRT (h-IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT)] for stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) qualified plans for medical physicists, therapists and physicians. A total of 40 patients confirmed to have stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC were enrolled, and four plans were designed for each patient. The prescription dose to the planning target volume (PTV) was assigned as 60 Gy in 30 fractions. The conformity index (CI), heterogeneity index (HI) and parameters of organs at risk (OARs) were calculated. For the PTV, the CI for VMAT was found to be the highest of all the four techniques (P<0.05), whereas the HI for the h-IMRT technique was found to be the lowest (P<0.05). Concerning the OARs, for the percentage of lung volume receiving a dose >5 Gy (lung V5), the highest value was obtained with VMAT (P<0.05), whereas for lung V30 and heart V30, the VMAT and IMRT techniques were found to be better compared with 3D-CRT and h-IMRT (P<0.05). For esophagus V50, the maximal dose (Dmax) and mean dose for the IMRT technique displayed the best results (P<0.05), and in the case of the spinal cord, the Dmax with VMAT showed a significant advantage over the other techniques (P<0.05). The treatment monitor units (MUs) in IMRT were found to be the largest (P<0.05), whereas the treatment time with VMAT was the shortest (P<0.05). For smaller PTVs, VMAT was the technique that provided the optimal dose distribution and sparing of the heart. Compared with 3D-CRT alone, adding 20% IMRT to the 3D-CRT base plan was shown to improve the plan quality, and IMRT and VMAT, as techniques, had better dose coverage and sparing of OARs. Furthermore, for patients in whom the lung V5 could be kept low enough, VMAT potentially offered a good alternative to the technique to IMRT, thereby offering additional possibilities for sparing of other OARs, and decreasing the MUs and treatment time.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]