A plan comparison study between rapid arc and conventional intensity-modulated radiation treatment plans in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction: Head and neck cancers are one of the common malignancies in Indian population. It’s entity, nasopharyngeal carcinoma is among the aggressive malignancies with its location and spread near very critical structures. Thus requires a highly conformal radiotherapy delivery techniques. Purpose: The aim of the study is to dosimetrically evaluate and to compare Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans and RAPID ARC plans for irradiation of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Material and Method: A retrospective study is done on 10 nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients, who were treated with Radiotherapy at ATRCTRI Bikaner. Radiotherapy was delivered by IMRT technique (Total of 70 Gy in 33 fractions). Same patients are now planned on Rapid arc technique. Dosimetric comparison is done in terms of PTV coverage, OAR dose, conformity index, homogeneity index. Result: PTV coverage is similar with both the plans. Homogeneity index is higher for IMRT plans 0.119+/- 0.020 compared to 0.104 +/- 0.018 for Rapid arc plans (statistically significant).The Rapid arc plans achieved slightly better conformity 1.018+/-0.09, whereas 1.105+/-0.12 for IMRT plans. Rapid arc achieved better results for OAR, statistically significant for Brainstem (54.4 +/-10.4 Gy for IMRT and 49.7+/-4.2 Gy for Rapid Arc, Lens (Left lens and Right lens received 10.55+/-5.8 Gy and 9.44+/-9.08 by IMRT and 6.12+/-6.1 Gy and 5.45+/-6.05 Gy for Rapid Arc), optic nerves (Right and Left optic nerve received 34.36 and 35.01 Gy for IMRT plans and 30.06 and 30.05 Gy for Rapid Arc plans. However the gains are statistically insignificant for spinal cord and vestibulocochlear nerve. No major difference found for Right and left parotid between both the arms. Conclusions: Rapid Arc is better technique compared to IMRT for Nasopharyngeal carcinoma treatment, that provides better dose conformity, more homogeneous coverage and OAR sparing. However study is retrospective and has lesser patients, thus requires prospective study with more number of patients along with comparison of clinical outcome.