Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences · 2022
Dosimetric comparison between Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) vs dual arc Volumetric Arc Therapy (VMAT) for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC): Systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chen Desiree, Cai Shao Bin, Soon Yu Yang, Cheo Timothy, Vellayappan Balamurugan, Tan Chek Wee, Ho Francis
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Previous non-randomised studies comparing dosimetric outcomes between advanced techniques such as IMRT and VMAT reported conflicting findings. We thus sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to consolidate the findings of these studies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PUBMED and EMBASE for eligible studies from their time of inception to 10 March 2022. A random effects model was used to estimate the pooled mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals(CIs) for target volume coverage, organ-at-risk(OAR) doses, monitor units(MUs) and treatment delivery times. We also performed a subgroup analysis to evaluate if different treatment planning systems (TPS) (Eclipse, Monaco and Pinnacle) used affected the pooled mean differences.
RESULTS: A total of 17 studies (383 patients) were eligible to be included. The pooled results showed that dual arc VMAT reduced D2% of PTV (MD=0.71Gy,95%CI=0.14-1.27,P=0.01), mean left cochlea dose (MD=2.6Gy,95%CI=0.03-5.16,P=0.05), mean right cochlea dose (MD=3.4Gy,95%CI=0.7-6.1,P=0.01), MUs (MD=554.9,95%CI=245.8-863.9,P=0.0004), treatment delivery times (MD=6.7mins,95%CI=4.5-8.9,P<0.0001) and integral dose (MD=0.97Gy,95%CI=0.28-1.67,P=0.006). None of the other indices were significantly better for the IMRT plans. The subgroup analysis showed that the integral dose was significantly lower only for Eclipse (MD=0.88Gy, 95%CI=0.14-1.63, P=0.02). The total MUs was significantly lower only for Eclipse (MD=1035.2, 95%CI=624.6-1445.9, P<0.0001) and Pinnacle (MD=293, 95%CI=15.6-570.5, P=0.04). Similarly, delivery time was also significantly lower only for Eclipse (MD=6.1mins, 95%CI=5.7-6.5, P<0.0001) and Pinnacle (MD=4.9mins, 95%CI=2.6-7.2, P<0.0001). The subgroup analysis however showed that target coverage was superior for the IMRT plans for both Pinnacle (MD=0.48Gy, 95%CI=0.31-0.66, P<0.0001) and Monaco (MD=0.12Gy, 95%CI=0.07-0.17, P<0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Dual-arc VMAT plans improved OAR doses, MUs and treatment times as compared to IMRT plans. The different TPS used may modify dosimetric outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PUBMED and EMBASE for eligible studies from their time of inception to 10 March 2022. A random effects model was used to estimate the pooled mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals(CIs) for target volume coverage, organ-at-risk(OAR) doses, monitor units(MUs) and treatment delivery times. We also performed a subgroup analysis to evaluate if different treatment planning systems (TPS) (Eclipse, Monaco and Pinnacle) used affected the pooled mean differences.
RESULTS: A total of 17 studies (383 patients) were eligible to be included. The pooled results showed that dual arc VMAT reduced D2% of PTV (MD=0.71Gy,95%CI=0.14-1.27,P=0.01), mean left cochlea dose (MD=2.6Gy,95%CI=0.03-5.16,P=0.05), mean right cochlea dose (MD=3.4Gy,95%CI=0.7-6.1,P=0.01), MUs (MD=554.9,95%CI=245.8-863.9,P=0.0004), treatment delivery times (MD=6.7mins,95%CI=4.5-8.9,P<0.0001) and integral dose (MD=0.97Gy,95%CI=0.28-1.67,P=0.006). None of the other indices were significantly better for the IMRT plans. The subgroup analysis showed that the integral dose was significantly lower only for Eclipse (MD=0.88Gy, 95%CI=0.14-1.63, P=0.02). The total MUs was significantly lower only for Eclipse (MD=1035.2, 95%CI=624.6-1445.9, P<0.0001) and Pinnacle (MD=293, 95%CI=15.6-570.5, P=0.04). Similarly, delivery time was also significantly lower only for Eclipse (MD=6.1mins, 95%CI=5.7-6.5, P<0.0001) and Pinnacle (MD=4.9mins, 95%CI=2.6-7.2, P<0.0001). The subgroup analysis however showed that target coverage was superior for the IMRT plans for both Pinnacle (MD=0.48Gy, 95%CI=0.31-0.66, P<0.0001) and Monaco (MD=0.12Gy, 95%CI=0.07-0.17, P<0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Dual-arc VMAT plans improved OAR doses, MUs and treatment times as compared to IMRT plans. The different TPS used may modify dosimetric outcomes.