Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size Users Online: 471
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 44  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 22-27

Dosimetric comparison of coplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy, noncoplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and volumetric arc therapy planning technique in hippocampal-sparing whole-brain radiotherapy


Department of Radiation Oncology, Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital and Medical Research Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Ajay Vindhyachal Sharma
Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital and Medical Research Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/rpe.rpe_48_20

Rights and Permissions

The aim of this study was to compare the dosimetric parameters of Co-planar Intensity modulated radiotherapy (C-IMRT), non-coplanar (NC-IMRT), and volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) planning technique in hippocampal sparing (HS) whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT). Fifteen patients of brain metastasis (BM) treated with hippocampal sparing whole-brain palliative radiation were selected for this study. C-IMRT, NC-IMRT and VMAT plans were generated for the comparison. Generated plans were evaluated based on planning target volume (PTV) coverage, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), beam-on time (BOT) and dose delivered to organs at risk (OARs) for the prescribed dose (PD) of 30 Gy in 10 fractions. Statistically significant difference was found in PTVD95%, PTVmax, HI, BOT, MU, Dmax of the brainstem, Dmean of eyes, Dmax of lenses and Dmax, Dmean and D2% of the bilateral hippocampus. However, a non-significant difference was observed in CI, D100% of both the hippocampus, Dmax of the optic chiasm, optic nerves, and Dmax of eyes in all the three planning techniques. Considering the superior plan quality, both NC-IMRT and VMAT are better than the C-IMRT planning technique. Based on beam-on time and delivery efficiency VMAT is found to be superior to both the C-IMRT and NC-IMRT technique. Doses to OARs are very well within the limits in all the three planning techniques.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
Next article
Previous article
Table of Contents
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Citation Manager
Access Statistics
Reader Comments
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed128    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded28    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal