For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
17
views
83
references
 Top references
cited by
14
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      198
      similar
       All similar
      OncoTargets and Therapy (submit here)

      This international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal by Dove Medical Press focuses on the pathological basis of cancers, potential targets for therapy and treatment protocols to improve the management of cancer patients. Publishing high-quality, original research on molecular aspects of cancer, including the molecular diagnosis, since 2008. Sign up for email alerts here. 50,877 Monthly downloads/views I 4.345 Impact Factor I 7.0 CiteScore I 0.81 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) I 0.811 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Volumetric modulated arc therapy for treatment of solid tumors: current insights

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aim

          This article discusses the current use of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques in clinical practice and reviews the available data from clinical outcome studies in different clinical settings. An overview of available literature about clinical outcomes with VMAT stereotactic/radiosurgical treatment is also reported.

          Materials and methods

          All published manuscripts reporting the use of VMAT in a clinical setting from 2009 to November 2016 were identified. The search was carried out in December 2016 using the National Library of Medicine (PubMed/Medline). The following words were searched: “volumetric arc therapy”[All Fields] OR “vmat”[All Fields] OR “rapidarc”[All Fields], AND “radiotherapy”[All Fields] AND “Clinical Trial”[All Fields].

          Results

          Overall, 37 studies (21 prospective and 16 retrospective) fulfilling inclusion criteria and thus included in the review evaluated 2,029 patients treated with VMAT; of these patients, ~30.8% had genitourinary (GU) tumors (81% prostate, 19% endometrial), 26.2% head-and-neck cancer (H&NC), 13.9% oligometastases, 11.2% had anorectal cancer, 10.6% thoracic neoplasms (81% breast, 19% lung), and 7.0% brain metastases (BMs). Six different clinical scenarios for VMAT use were identified: 1) BMs, 2) H&NC, 3) thoracic neoplasms, 4) GU cancer, 5) anorectal tumor, and 6) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) performed by VMAT technique in the oligometastatic patient setting.

          Conclusion

          The literature addressing the clinical appropriateness of VMAT is scarce. Current literature suggests that VMAT, especially when used as simultaneous integrated boost or SBRT strategy, is an effective safe modality for all cancer types.

          Most cited references83

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial

          Christopher Nutting, James Morden, Kevin J. Harrington … (2011)
          Summary Background Xerostomia is the most common late side-effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck. Compared with conventional radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can reduce irradiation of the parotid glands. We assessed the hypothesis that parotid-sparing IMRT reduces the incidence of severe xerostomia. Methods We undertook a randomised controlled trial between Jan 21, 2003, and Dec 7, 2007, that compared conventional radiotherapy (control) with parotid-sparing IMRT. We randomly assigned patients with histologically confirmed pharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma (T1–4, N0–3, M0) at six UK radiotherapy centres between the two radiotherapy techniques (1:1 ratio). A dose of 60 or 65 Gy was prescribed in 30 daily fractions given Monday to Friday. Treatment was not masked. Randomisation was by computer-generated permuted blocks and was stratified by centre and tumour site. Our primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months, as assessed by the Late Effects of Normal Tissue (LENT SOMA) scale. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, with all patients who had assessments included. Long-term follow-up of patients is ongoing. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial register, number ISRCTN48243537. Findings 47 patients were assigned to each treatment arm. Median follow-up was 44·0 months (IQR 30·0–59·7). Six patients from each group died before 12 months and seven patients from the conventional radiotherapy and two from the IMRT group were not assessed at 12 months. At 12 months xerostomia side-effects were reported in 73 of 82 alive patients; grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months was significantly lower in the IMRT group than in the conventional radiotherapy group (25 [74%; 95% CI 56–87] of 34 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 15 [38%; 23–55] of 39 given IMRT, p=0·0027). The only recorded acute adverse event of grade 2 or worse that differed significantly between the treatment groups was fatigue, which was more prevalent in the IMRT group (18 [41%; 99% CI 23–61] of 44 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 35 [74%; 55–89] of 47 given IMRT, p=0·0015). At 24 months, grade 2 or worse xerostomia was significantly less common with IMRT than with conventional radiotherapy (20 [83%; 95% CI 63–95] of 24 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs nine [29%; 14–48] of 31 given IMRT; p<0·0001). At 12 and 24 months, significant benefits were seen in recovery of saliva secretion with IMRT compared with conventional radiotherapy, as were clinically significant improvements in dry-mouth-specific and global quality of life scores. At 24 months, no significant differences were seen between randomised groups in non-xerostomia late toxicities, locoregional control, or overall survival. Interpretation Sparing the parotid glands with IMRT significantly reduces the incidence of xerostomia and leads to recovery of saliva secretion and improvements in associated quality of life, and thus strongly supports a role for IMRT in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Funding Cancer Research UK (CRUK/03/005).
          Article 0 comments Cited 410 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc.

            Karl-Otto Bischoff (2007)
            In this work a novel plan optimization platform is presented where treatment is delivered efficiently and accurately in a single dynamically modulated arc. Improvements in patient care achieved through image-guided positioning and plan adaptation have resulted in an increase in overall treatment times. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has also increased treatment time by requiring a larger number of beam directions, increased monitor units (MU), and, in the case of tomotherapy, a slice-by-slice delivery. In order to maintain a similar level of patient throughput it will be necessary to increase the efficiency of treatment delivery. The solution proposed here is a novel aperture-based algorithm for treatment plan optimization where dose is delivered during a single gantry arc of up to 360 deg. The technique is similar to tomotherapy in that a full 360 deg of beam directions are available for optimization but is fundamentally different in that the entire dose volume is delivered in a single source rotation. The new technique is referred to as volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf motion and number of MU per degree of gantry rotation is restricted during the optimization so that gantry rotation speed, leaf translation speed, and dose rate maxima do not excessively limit the delivery efficiency. During planning, investigators model continuous gantry motion by a coarse sampling of static gantry positions and fluence maps or MLC aperture shapes. The technique presented here is unique in that gantry and MLC position sampling is progressively increased throughout the optimization. Using the full gantry range will theoretically provide increased flexibility in generating highly conformal treatment plans. In practice, the additional flexibility is somewhat negated by the additional constraints placed on the amount of MLC leaf motion between gantry samples. A series of studies are performed that characterize the relationship between gantry and MLC sampling, dose modeling accuracy, and optimization time. Results show that gantry angle and MLC sample spacing as low as 1 deg and 0.5 cm, respectively, is desirable for accurate dose modeling. It is also shown that reducing the sample spacing dramatically reduces the ability of the optimization to arrive at a solution. The competing benefits of having small and large sample spacing are mutually realized using the progressive sampling technique described here. Preliminary results show that plans generated with VMAT optimization exhibit dose distributions equivalent or superior to static gantry IMRT. Timing studies have shown that the VMAT technique is well suited for on-line verification and adaptation with delivery times that are reduced to approximately 1.5-3 min for a 200 cGy fraction.
            Article 0 comments Cited 273 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Intensity-modulated radiation therapy, protons, and the risk of second cancers.

              Eric Hall (2006)
              Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) allows dose to be concentrated in the tumor volume while sparing normal tissues. However, the downside to IMRT is the potential to increase the number of radiation-induced second cancers. The reasons for this potential are more monitor units and, therefore, a larger total-body dose because of leakage radiation and, because IMRT involves more fields, a bigger volume of normal tissue is exposed to lower radiation doses. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy may double the incidence of solid cancers in long-term survivors. This outcome may be acceptable in older patients if balanced by an improvement in local tumor control and reduced acute toxicity. On the other hand, the incidence of second cancers is much higher in children, so that doubling it may not be acceptable. IMRT represents a special case for children for three reasons. First, children are more sensitive to radiation-induced cancer than are adults. Second, radiation scattered from the treatment volume is more important in the small body of the child. Third, the question of genetic susceptibility arises because many childhood cancers involve a germline mutation. The levels of leakage radiation in current Linacs are not inevitable. Leakage can be reduced but at substantial cost. An alternative strategy is to replace X-rays with protons. However, this change is only an advantage if the proton machine employs a pencil scanning beam. Many proton facilities use passive modulation to produce a field of sufficient size, but the use of a scattering foil produces neutrons, which results in an effective dose to the patient higher than that characteristic of IMRT. The benefit of protons is only achieved if a scanning beam is used in which the doses are 10 times lower than with IMRT.
              Article 0 comments Cited 201 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Onco Targets Ther
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Onco Targets Ther
                Journal ID (publisher-id): OncoTargets and Therapy
                Title: OncoTargets and therapy
                Publisher: Dove Medical Press
                ISSN (Electronic): 1178-6930
                Publication date Collection: 2017
                Publication date (Electronic): 26 July 2017
                Volume: 10
                Pages: 3755-3772
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Radiation Oncology Unit
                [2 ]Medical Physics Unit, “Giovanni Paolo II” Foundation, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Campobasso
                [3 ]Radiation Oncology Unit, Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna
                [4 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome
                [5 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome
                [6 ]Department of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Francesco Deodato, Radiation Oncology Unit, “Giovanni Paolo II” Foundation, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Largo Gemelli 1, 86100, Campobasso, Italy, Tel +39 0874 312 259, Fax +39 0874 312 720, Email fdeodato@ 123456rm.unicatt.it
                [*]

                These authors contributed equally to this work

                Article
                Publisher ID: ott-10-3755
                DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S113119
                PMC ID: 5538686
                PubMed ID: 28794640
                SO-VID: 4b28e4bf-3911-4126-acb2-2efb66f627ca
                Copyright © © 2017 Macchia et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited
                License:

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                History
                Categories
                Subject: Review

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Keywords: vmat,rapidarc,clinical trial,review,radiosurgery,stereotactic,simultaneous integrated boost
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Keywords: vmat, rapidarc, clinical trial, review, radiosurgery, stereotactic, simultaneous integrated boost

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content198

                See all similar

                Cited by14

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors869

                See all reference authors