To study the feasibility of constant dose rate volumetric modulated arc therapy (CDR-VMAT) in radiotherapy for gallbladder cancer by comparing dosimetric parameter suggested by International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements-83 (ICRU-83) with step and shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (SS IMRT).

For this study, we selected 21 post-operative gallbladder cancer patients, which were treated with the IMRT technique from 2016 to 2019. For each patient, we generated SS IMRT plan and CDR-VMAT plan and were dosimetrically compared by parameters suggested by ICRU-83 for PTV. Homogeneity Index (HI) and Conformity Index (CI) were also calculated. For evaluation of Organ at Risk (OAR), we compared the mean doses, volume doses to the right kidney, left kidney, both kidneys combined, liver and max dose to the spinal cord. Monitor units (MUs) and treatment delivery time were also compared.

On comparing, we found that CDR-VMAT plans were highly conformed as CI and PCI (CI define by Paddick) were found more (0·98 ± 0·01 vs. 0·97 ± 0·03 and 0·86 ± 0·05 vs. 0·85 ± 0·05) than IMRT plans but not statistically significant. Better dose HI was found for IMRT plans with statistical significant difference (p < 0·001). The tumour coverage was found similar 98·24% and 97·83% for SS IMRT and CDR-VMAT, respectively. For D2%, the maximum dose to PTV was significantly lower in IMRT (p = 0·001). D50% and mean dose to PTV were also comparable to IMRT with no statistically significant difference. The OAR parameters were comparable in both the techniques. The mean doses and volume doses V10, V20 and V30 to the right kidney, left kidney and liver were also comparable with no significant difference (p > 0·05) was noted among them. However, the maximum dose to the spinal cord was significantly less in CDR-VMAT (21·1 Gy vs. 25·1Gy) than SS IMRT with p = 0·006. More MUs were associated with the CDR-VMAT technique, but shorter treatment delivery time than the IMRT technique.

On dosimetric comparison of two treatment techniques, we conclude that CDR-VMAT can be a valid option in radiotherapy as it achieved highly conformed dose distribution, comparable tumour coverage and OAR sparing as IMRT technique for gallbladder cancer.

A comparative study was performed about the plan parameters and quality indices between volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer patients. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the two methods of external beam radiotherapy IMRT and VMAT in terms of plan quality and efficacy.

Fifteen high-risk prostate patients were planned for radiotherapy using 6 MV photon. Three dose levels were contoured having Planning Tumour Volume 1 (PTV1 = 48 Gy), Planning Tumour Volume 2 (PTV2 = 57.6 Gy) and Planning Tumour Volume 3 (PTV3 = 60 Gy). Setup margins were given using the CHIP trial method. The prescribed PTV3 dose was 60 Gy in 20 fractions which is biologically equivalent to 74 Gy in 37 fractions using α/β = 3. In case of IMRT, seven fixed beam angles 30, 60, 105, 180, 255, 300 and 330 were used and the dose was optimised using the sliding window method. In case of rapid arc technique, one or two full arcs were used for dose optimisation while keeping all the dose constraints and other planning parameters same used in IMRT. The plan evaluation parameters and Organ at risks (OARs) doses were calculated using a dose volume histogram (DVH).

The average D2, D5, D95 and PTVmean for PTV3 were 61.22, 61.13, 58.12, 60.00 Gy and 62.41 62.24 59.53 61.12 Gy for IMRT and VMAT, respectively. The averages V60 for bladder and V30 for rectum were 22.81, 25 and 67, 65% for IMRT and VMAT, respectively. The average homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) and gradient index (GI) were 1.04, 1.4833, 14.79 and 1.04, 1.704, 7.89 for IMRT and VMAT, respectively.

VMAT takes less dose-delivery time and lesser number of monitoring units than IMRT, thus it compensates the intrafractional movements during dose delivery. The Dose GI in VMAT was much better than IMRT. This indicates sharper dose fall off near the normal tissue. No other major differences were observed in terms of plan evaluation parameters between IMRT and VMAT techniques. So, we conclude that VMAT technique is more efficient than IMRT in terms of plan quality and dose delivery.

The aim of this study was to compare volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with dynamic intensity-modulated radiation therapy (dIMRT) and step-and-shoot IMRT (ssIMRT) for different treatment sites.

Twelve patients were selected for the planning comparison study. This included three head and neck, three brain, three rectal and three cervical cancer patients. Total dose of 50 Gy was given for all the plans. Plans were done for Elekta synergy with Monaco treatment planning system. All plans were generated with 6 MV photons beam. Plan evaluation was based on the ability to meet the dose volume histogram, dose homogeneity index, conformity index and radiation delivery time, and monitor unit needs to deliver the prescribed dose.

The VMAT and dIMRT plans achieved the better conformity (CI98% = 0·965 ± 0·023) and (CI98% = 0·939 ± 0·01), respectively, while ssIMRT plans were slightly inferior (CI98% = 0·901 ± 0·038). The inhomogeneity in the planning target volume (PTV) was highest with ssIMRT with HI equal to 0·097 ± 0·015 when compared to VMAT with HI equal to 0·092 ± 0·0369 and 0·095 ± 0·023 with dIMRT. The integral dose is found to be inferior with VMAT 105·31 ± 53·6 (Gy L) when compared with dIMRT 110·75 ± 52·9 (Gy L) and ssIMRT 115 38 ± 55·1(Gy L). All the techniques respected the planning objective for all organs at risk. The delivery time per fraction for VMAT was much lower than dIMRT and ssIMRT.

Our results indicate that dIMRT and VMAT provide better sparing of normal tissue, homogeneity and conformity than ssIMRT with reduced treatment delivery time.

Across the history of radiotherapy, with gradual technological progress and various methods of irradiation, the purpose has always been to deliver homogeneously 100% of the prescribed dose to 100% of the target volume containing the identifiable tumour and/or tumour cells potentially present while limiting the dose to adjacent normal tissues.

The formula for triple point conformity scale is: CS3=(V95+V100+V105)/3VT. (a) Lower limit determination: CS3=(VT+0·93 VT+0·0)/3VT=0·643; (b) Upper limit determination: in order to find out an empirical relation in between V105 and VT, we studied over 593 cancer patients of various sites by taking planning target volume as target, and an empirical relation is derived out as: V105/VT=0·0007. Hence, CS3=(VT+VT+0·0007 VT)/3VT=0·6667~0·667.

Upper and lower limits of CS3 have been calculated at 0·643 and 0·667, respectively. Maximum value of CS3 index is recorded 0·656 while minimum value is 0·478.

The CS3 scale constitutes an attractive tool because it could facilitate decisions during analysis of various treatment plans proposed for conformal radiotherapy. Its major advantages are its simplicity and integration of multiple parameters.

The triple point conformity scale (CS3) provides better qualitative information about radiotherapy plans as compared to other conformity indices. This study advises the users to use the CS3 scale to evaluate a conformal radiotherapy plan which encompasses a wide range of relevant clinical volumes, and is able to extract qualitative dosimetric information.

This study aimed to investigate tolerance dose to organs at risk (OARs) as well as degree of conformity and homogeneity for head and neck cancer patients by using simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique (SIB IMRT).

This study analysed 15 head and neck cancer patients receiving treatment using inverse planned SIB IMRT technique. Using a beam energy of 6 MV, two dose levels of 70 and 55·4 Gy were used to treat the tumour. Doses of 2 Gy in 35 fractions and 1·68 Gy in 33 fractions were simultaneously delivered for effective planning target volume (PTV1) and boost planning target volume (PTV2), respectively.

Dose distribution in PTV and critical organs lies within tolerance dose guidelines protecting spinal cord, brain stem, optic chiasm, optic nerve, thus reducing the risk of damage to normal tissues. Minor deviation from tolerance limit was observed for parotid glands. This technique provided highly conformal and homogenous dose distribution as well as better sparing of OARs, hence verifying quality assurance results to be satisfactory.

SIB IMRT technique offers best solution for preserving organ function by keeping dose below tolerance level. Treatment of head and neck carcinoma using SIB IMRT is feasible, more efficient, and dose escalation is achieved in a single plan.