Comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for left-sided whole-breast irradiation using automated planning

• Published in: Strahlentherapie und Onkologie Vol. 198; no. 3; pp. 236 - 246
• Main Authors: Redapi, L., Rossi, L., Marrazzo, L., Penninkhof, J. J., Pallotta, S., Heijmen, B.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01-03-2022; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Automation; Breast; Breast cancer; Dosimetry; Homogeneity; Humans; Irradiation; Lungs; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Oncology; Optimization; Organs at Risk - radiation effects; Original; Original Article; Parameter estimation; Radiation therapy; Radiometry; Radiotherapy; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods; Unilateral Breast Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Tangent-based intensity; Partial arcs volumetric modulated arc therapy; Breast cancer; Deep inspiration breath-hold; Autoplanning; Modulated radiation therapy
• ISSN: 0179-7158; 1439-099X
• DOI: 10.1007/s00066-021-01817-x

Background
Published treatment technique comparisons for postoperative left-sided whole breast irradiation (WBI) with deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) are scarce, small, and inconclusive. In this study, fully automated multi-criterial plan optimization, generating a single high-quality, Pareto-optimal plan per patient and treatment technique, was used to compare for a large patient cohort 1) intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with two tangential fields and 2) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with two small tangential subarcs.
Materials and methods
Forty-eight randomly selected patients recently treated with DIBH and 16 × 2.66 Gy were included. The optimizer was configured for the clinical planning protocol. Comparisons between IMRT and VMAT included dosimetric plan parameters, estimated excess relative risks (ERR) for toxicities, delivery times, MUs, and deliverability accuracy at a linac.
Results
The automatically generated IMRT and VMAT plans applied in this study were similar or higher in quality than the manually generated clinical plans. For equal PTVin V95% (98.4 ± 0.9%), VMAT had significant advantages compared to IMRT regarding breast dose homogeneity and doses in heart and ipsilateral lung, at the cost of some minor deteriorations for contralateral breast (few cases with larger deteriorations) and lung. Conformality improved from 1.38 to 1.18 (
p
 < 0.001). With VMAT, ERR for major coronary events and ipsilateral lung tumors were reduced by 3% (range: −1–12%) and 16% (range: −3–38%), respectively. MUs and delivery times were higher for VMAT. There were no statistical differences in γ passing rates.
Conclusion
For WBI in conservative therapy of left-sided breast patients treated with DIBH, VMAT with two tangential subarcs was generally dosimetrically superior to IMRT with two tangential static fields. Results need confirmation by robustness analyses.