Effect of Photon Energy on Conventional Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and Rapid Arc Radiotherapy Planning for Deep-Seated Targets in Carcinoma Cervix

• Main Authors: Manindra Bhushan, Girigesh Yadav, Deepak Tripathi, Lalit Kumar, Abhinav Dewan, Inderjit Kaur Wahi, Mahamood Suhail, Swarupa Mitra, Munish Gairola
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc. 2019-01-01
• Series: Asian Journal of Oncology
• Subjects: intensity modulated radiation therapy; dual arc; non-target areas; conformity; homogeneity
• Online Access: http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0039-1693523
• ISSN: 2454-6798; 2455-4618

Introduction To evaluate the dosimetric effect of photon energies on fixed field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and dual arc (DA) planning and to compare the dosimetric differences between conventional IMRT and DA radiotherapy planning. Materials and Methods IMRT and DA plans were generated for 15 patients having cervical cancer using different photon energies. IMRT and DA plans were generated using seven fields and double arcs, respectively. Dosimetric comparison was done in terms of planning target volume (PTV) coverage, sparing of organ at risk (OAR), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and monitor units (MUs). Photo-neutron (energy ≤10MV) contribution was not considered for this study. Near region (NR) and far region (FR) were contoured to evaluate the dose deposited in nontarget area. Results No significant difference was observed (p > 0.05) in PTV coverage for conventional IMRT and DA; however, 6 MV yielded significantly better coverage over 15 MV (p < 0.05) for both the treatment modalities. Mean bladder dose was significantly more for conventional IMRT compared with DA. For rectal mean dose, p-value was nonsignificant for IMRT in comparison to DA, while significant difference was observed for change in photon energies for both treatment modalities respectively, except for 10 MV versus 15 MV DA plans. Significant improvements in HI (except 6 MV vs. 10 MV DA), CI (except 6 MV vs. 10 MV IMRT and DA), MUs, NR, and FR were noted. Conclusion DA generates more conformal, homogenous plans, requires less numbers of MUs, and deposits fewer doses to NR and FR regions of nontarget tissues in comparison to conventional IMRT. Although increase in photon energy for IMRT and DA plans reduces numbers of MUs and dose deposited to NR and FR regions, yet the choice for treatment of carcinoma cervix remains 6 MV due to production of photo-neutrons at higher energies.