Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 155
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 25

Comparison of dosimetric parameters and three-dimensional dosimetric verification of three intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans for thymoma based on the dose–volume histogram and ArcCHECK-3DVH system

Department of Cancer Center, Daping Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China

Correspondence Address:
Mingying Geng
Department of Cancer Center, Daping Hospital, Army Medical University, No. 10 Changjiang Zhilu, Yuzhong District, Chongqing 400042
Xuan He
Department of Cancer Center, Daping Hospital, Army Medical University, No. 10 Changjiang Zhilu, Yuzhong District, Chongqing 400042
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/digm.digm_11_22

Rights and Permissions

Objective: To compare the dosimetric parameters of step-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy (sIMRT), dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (dIMRT), and volume-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in thymoma and to study the feasibility of the ArcCHECK-3DVH system in three intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans to choose a more appropriate intensity-modulated radiotherapy for thymoma. Materials and Methods: Seventeen patients with thymoma were enrolled in this study. Treatment plans of sIMRT, dIMRT, and VMAT for each patient were based on the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS). Dosimetric verification was performed via the ArcCHECK-3DVH system. We compared and analyzed the 3D γ pass rates of the TPS dose calculation and ArcCHECK-3DVH system dose reconstruction with the three gamma criteria (3 mm/3%, 2 mm/2%, and 1 mm/1%) with a threshold of 10%. Dose–volume histogram analysis was used to compare the dose parameters for target volumes, and organs at risk (OARs), such as D98%, D50%, D2%, Dmax, V20, and V5. Monitor units (MUs) and delivery time were also compared. Results: There were significant differences in the three intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans. For target volume, VMAT showed the highest planning target volume (PTV) D98% and the lowest PTV D50% compared with sIMRT or dIMRT. The PTV D2% of VMAT was lower than that of sIMRT and higher than that of dIMRT, and VAMT demonstrated the highest conformity index and MU, lowest homogeneity index, and shortest treatment delivery time. For the OARs, VMAT is not inferior to sIMRT and dIMRT in OARs protection. For the dosimetric verification, the entire area, PTV, lungs, heart, and spinal cord of VMAT showed the highest γ pass rates than the other two techniques under the gamma 3 mm/3% criteria, which was even more pronounced when the stricter gamma criteria of 2 mm/2% and 1 mm/1% were applied. Conclusion: VMAT can be applied to radiotherapy of thymoma, and the accuracy of treatment plan execution can be guaranteed through the ArcCHECK-3DVH system.

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
    PDF Downloaded65    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal