Abbreviations

VMAT: The Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy; IMRT: Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy; MLC: Multileaf Collimator; OARs: Organs at Risk; 4DCRT: 4 Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy; 3DCRT: 3 Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy; CT: Computed Tomography; GTV: Gross Target Volume; CTV: Clinical Target Volume; PTV: Planning Target Volume

Introduction

Pancreatic carcinoma is one of the most complicated cancers in treatment. There are 2 approaches in its treatment such as “chemoradiotherapy followed by chemotherapy” and “chemotherapy alone” [1]. This difference is due to pancreas site since it is placed in the middle of many critical structures [2].

IMRT is a superior mode of high-precision radiotherapy [3]. VMAT technique is a novel IMRT form [4,5]. As in pancreatic radiotherapy planning, its motion is an essential problem, VMAT can lessen this risk of motion by shortening the time of treatment therefore it has a hopeful effect on minimizing radiotherapy toxicity [6-8].

Aim of Our Study

Our study aim was to define if VMAT achieves a high dose distribution and more dose homogeneity with shorter overall treatment time in comparison to IMRT depended on 4D-CT target volume coverage and organs at risk doses in definitive treatment by concurrant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer.

Patients and Methods

Study design

The medical records of five patients of locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer treated by conventional fractionation using VMAT were reviewed and re-planned by IMRT techniques at International Medical Center, Cairo, Egypt. PTV50.4 is contoured and covering 5 mm around CTV that encompasses all relevant nodal regions including the porta hepatis, celiac/SMA and PA/RP lymph nodes in all techniques delivering 28 fractions with 1.8 Gy per fraction. PTV54 is contoured and covering 5 mm margin around GTV that consists of hypodense area "a biopsy proven disease in the pancreas and any positive lymph nodes visualized on diagnostic pancreatic protocol CT". The same objectives were determined for both IMRT and VMAT plans. Contouring of OAR was done according to RTOG guidelines [9].

Dose limitations

Conventional fractionation

Organ at risk	Tolerance dose
Spinal cord	Maximum point dose is less than 45 Gy.
Bowel	Dmax is less than 55 Gy Keep bowel volumes receiving 45-55 GY < 30%
Kidney	Mean total kidney dose is < 18 Gy. If only one kidney is functional limit radiotherapy dose delivered < 10-15% over 18 Gy and less 30% over 14 Gy
Liver	Mean dose < 25-30 Gy to prevent radiation hepatitis.

Adapted from RTOG 1102(IMRT, 2.2-54Gy).

Adapted from RTOG 0848(3D or IMRT) [10].

Planning system

IMRT te chnique: Six to eight fields were calculated using the dynamic IMRT technique, 10 Mv energy and Monte Carlo Algorithm at different angles.

VMAT technique: Plans were generated using dynamic VMAT and Monte Carlo Algorithm and 2-3 arcs of 6-10 Mv in clockwise and counterclockwise.

Plan evaluation: We compared target volumes coverage, critical organs sparing, integral dose, Homogeneity index, Conformity index and beam on treatment time between two plans.

Statistical analysis

Using Microsoft Office Excel 2010 for windows for data collection, tabulation and statistically analysis and SPSS 22.0 for windows. Expression of Continuous Quantitative variables were done as the mean ± SD & median (range). Check of continuous data for normality was done by using Shapiro Walk test. Using of Wilcoxon singed ranks test was done for two dependent groups of non-normally distributed data. All tests were two sided. P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Table 1 and Table 2.

Target volumes

Both IMRT and VMAT techniques have comparable PTV54 target coverage. PTV50.4 is statistically significant and better in VMAT than IMRT so it is in favor of VMAT than IMRT.

Organ at risk sparing

IMRT & VMAT techniques have comparable sparing in case of liver, RT kidney and bowel. Sparing of left kidney and stomach is more significant and better in VMAT than IMRT so it is more in favor of VMAT than IMRT. However, the spinal cord is relatively better spared in IMRT than VMAT.

Integral dose (Normal tissue outside PTV)

The integral dose represents the total energy deposited by ionizing radiation within a body. Lower Integral dose is attained in IMRT than VMAT so IMRT can achieve further reduction of complication rates in pancreatic cancer and this is in favor of IMRT than VMAT technique. (P value 0.038).

Beam on treatment time and dose homogeneity

VMAT has shorter treatment time beam on (median 0.7600) than IMRT (median 1.6700) (P value 0.042) and more conformity (P value 0.025) and homogeneity index (P value 0.042) so it can achieve more dose homogeneity.

IMRT & VMAT techniques have comparable sparing in case of liver, RT kidney and bowel. Sparing of left kidney and stomach is more significant and better in VMAT than IMRT so it is more in favor of VMAT than IMRT. However, the spinal cord is relatively better spared in IMRT than VMAT.

Discussion

Pancreatic cancer radiotherapy is a complex area due to its site and movement factor due to organ motion and respiration. IMRT has been proved to improve dosimetric parameters and minimize the doses delivered to normal critical tissues. The first significant problem of radiotherapy is the high recurrence rate of acute adverse of gastrointestinal tract via concurrent chemo radiotherapy. The second problem was intra-fraction motion in pancreas cancer. Using VMAT could achieve more effective dose distribution and more target coverage and more dose homogeneity. In our study IMRT & VMAT techniques have comparable sparing in case of liver, RT kidney and bowel. Sparing of left kidney and stomach is more significant and better in VMAT than IMRT so it is more in favor of VMAT than IMRT in accordance with SEZEN, et al. study at 2017 [11].

As our study, Ali, et al., analyzed the dosimetric data of 10 patients and the conclusion of this study that using VMAT in patients with pancreatic cancer either for curative or adjuvant radiotherapy intent, achieved lower mean doses of both kidney in comparison to IMRT, however similar other organ doses of both techniques were detected [12].

One of the essential acute adverse effects was caused by the dose that delivered to the small bowel during therapy. It is revealed that radiotherapy toxicity can be achieved with even large volume of low dose areas (5-15 Gy) [13]. This is a great care for using of recent technologies as IMRT and VMAT. Landry, et al ., GTV and microscopic disease received 45 Gy, and in comparison with 3DCRTand IMRT, the dose that delivered to 1/3 of the small bowel reduced to 38.5 Gy vs. 30.2 Gy [14,15].

In our study spinal cord max dose is less in IMRT (p value 0.039) than VMAT in contrast to Jethwa, et al. study 2018 [16].

In pancreatic cancer radiotherapy planning, to overcome the motion factor, using new radiotherapy technologies for reduction normal organ doses [17]. Sangalli, et al., studied 4DCT planning impact for unresectable pancreatic cancer patients. Via using this planning system, target volumes lessened by 37% in comparison to standard target delineation [14]. In our study, 4DCT simulation was done as a standard approach for radiotherapy planning of pancreas cancer patients.

Lower Integral dose is attained in IMRT than VMAT so IMRT can achieve further reduction of complication rates in pancreatic cancer and this is in favor of IMRT than VMAT technique. This finding is in agree with many previous dosimetric studies as Chen, et al., [18].

VMAT has shorter treatment time beam on than IMRT and more conformity and homogeneity index so it can achieve more dose homogeneity as reported in previous dosimetric studies [19].

Conclusions

In the dosimetric comparison of ssIMRT and VMAT techniques based on 4D CT scans in the cases of locally advanced irresectable pancreatic cancer patients, both plans achieve dosimetric organ goals, however VMAT provided a higher dose distribution regarding to organs at risk as all OAR have statistically significant better sparing in case of VMAT than IMRT except the spinal cord without compromising CTV coverage. Moreover VMAT can achieve more dose homogeneity in shorter treatment time. This study is restricted by a quite small number of patients but these results could be hopeful for more and more usage of VMAT for pancreatic cancer as routine as the other sites for example cancers of head and neck.

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

Declare.

Financial Support

Not applicable.

References

1. Herreros-Villanueva M, Hijona E, Cosme A, Bujanda L (2012) Adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol 18: 1565-1572.
2. Macdonald JS, Smalley SR, Benedetti J, Hundahl SA, Estes NC, et al. (2001) Chemoradiotherapy after surgery compared with surgery alone for adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophagealjunction. N Engl J Med 345: 725-730.
3. Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Collaborative Working Group (2001) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy: Current status and issues of interest. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51: 880-914.
4. Kuo YC, Chiu YM, Shih WP, Yu HW, Chen CW, et al. (2011) Volumetric intensity-modulated Arc (RapidArc) therapy for primary hepatocellular carcinoma: Comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 3-D conformal radiotherapy. Radiat Oncol 6: 76.
5. Fung-Kee-Fung SD, Hackett R, Hales L, Warren G, Singh AK (2012) A prospective trial of volumetric intensitymodulated arc therapy vs. conventional intensity modulated radiation therapy in advanced head and neck cancer. World J Clin Oncol 3: 57-62.
6. Eppinga W, Lagerwaard F, Verbakel W, Slotman B, Senan S (2010) Volumetric modulated arc therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 186: 382-387.
7. Cai J, Yue J, McLawhorn R, Yang W, Wijesooriya K, et al. (2011) Dosimetric comparison of 6 MV and 15 MV single arc rapidarc to helical TomoTherapy for the treatment of pancreatic cancer. Med Dosim 36: 317-320.
8. Vieillot S, Azria D, Riou O, Moscardo CL, Dubois JB, et al. (2011) Bilateral kidney preservation by volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) compared to conventional radiation therapy (3D-CRT) in pancreatic and bile duct malignancies. Radiat Oncol 6: 147.
9. Yovino S, Poppe M, Jabbour S, David V, Garofalo M, et al. (2011) Intensity-modulated radiation therapy significantly improves acute gastrointestinal toxicity in pancreatic and ampullary cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 79: 158-162.
10. Abrams AR, Winter AK, Safran H, Goodman KA, Regine WF, et al. (2020) Results of the NRG oncology/RTOG 0848 adjuvant chemotherapy question-erlotinib+gemcitabine for resected cancer of the pancreatic head: A phase II randomized clinical trial. Am J Clin Oncol 43: 173-179.
11. Duygu SEZEN, Z Vildan ALPAN, Steve KIRSNER,Yucel SAGLAM, Ugur SELEK, et al. (2017) Volumetric Arc therapy seems more promising for sparing organs at risk in adjuvant postoperative radiotherapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma than step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Turk J Oncol 32: 63-69.
12. Ali AN, Dhabaan AH, Jarrio CS, Siddiqi AK, Landry JC (2012) Dosimetric comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for pancreatic malignancies. Med Dosim 37: 271-275.
13. Baglan KL, Frazier RC, Yan D, Huang RR, Martinez AA, et al. (2002) The dose-volume relationship of acute small bowel toxicity from concurrent 5-FUbased chemotherapy and radiation therapy for rectalcancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52: 176-183.
14. Sangalli G, Passoni P, Cattaneo GM, Broggi S, Bettinardi V, et al. (2011) Planning design of locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma using 4DCT and IMRT/ IGRT technologies. Acta Oncol 50: 72-80.
15. Landry JC, Yang GY, Ting JY, Staley CA, Torres W, et al. (2002) Treatment of pancreatic cancer tumors with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using the volume at risk approach (VARA): Employing dose-volume histogram (DVH) and normal tissuecomplication probability (NTCP) to evaluate small bowel toxicity. Med Dosim 27: 121-129.
16. Jethwa KR, Tryggestad EJ, Whitaker TJ, Giffey BT, Kazemba BD, et al. (2018) Initial experience with intensity modulated proton therapy for intact, clinically localized pancreas cancer: Clinical implementation, dosimetric analysis, acute treatment-related adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes. Adv Radiat Oncol 3: 314-321.
17. van der Geld YG, van Triest B, Verbakel WF, van Sörnsen de Koste JR, Senan S, et al. (2008) Evaluation of four-dimensional computed tomography-based intensity-modulated and respiratory-gated radiotherapy techniques for pancreatic carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 72: 1215-1220.
18. Chen W, Yang X, Jiang N, Zhang 1 Z, Hong J, et al. (2017) Intensity-modulated radiotherapy, volume-modulated arc therapy and helical tomotherapy for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A dosimetric comparison. Translational Cancer Research 6: 5.
19. Palma D, Vollans E, James K, Nakano S, Moiseenko V, et al. (2008) Volumetric modulated arc therapy for delivery of prostate radiotherapy: Comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 72: 996-1001.

---