Comparison of plan quality and robustness using VMAT and IMRT for breast cancer

To evaluate the plan quality and robustness of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for breast cancer, 50 patients, including 25 patients who received radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (BCR) and 25 patients who received postmastectomy radiotherapy (PRT), were selected for this study. Nominal VMAT and IMRT plans were generated for each patient on Eclipse treatment planning system (version 15.6). The dosimetric metrics, dose distribution, gamma passing rate, and delivery time were compared. In addition, 12 uncertainty plans with plan isocenter uncertainty and CT density uncertainty were recalculated based on the nominal plans for each patient. The dose volume histogram (DVH) band width (DVHBW) was adopted to quantify the plan robustness of the nominal plans for the perturbed scenarios in this study. For BCR, the dosimetric metrics except planning target volume (PTV) conformal index (CI) and ipsilateral lung V 5 were not statistically different for IMRT and VMAT plans. PTV CI of VMAT plans was better than that of IMRT plans (VMAT: 0.923 ± 0.024, IMRT: 0.855 ± 0.032, p = 0.003). The ipsilateral lung V 5 of VMAT plan was higher than that of IMRT plan (VMAT: 42.4% ± 2.8%, IMRT: 40.5% ± 4.0%, p = 0.045). The VMAT plans save more than 1.20 min compared to the IMRT plans (VMAT: 0.87 min, IMRT: 2.08 min, p < 0.001). The gamma passing rates of VMAT plans were better than those of IMRT plans (3 mm/3%, VMAT: 99.7% ± 0.2%, IMRT: 99.4% ± 0.4%, p < 0.001; 2 mm/2%, VMAT: 97.2% ± 1.0%, IMRT: 96.9% ± 0.6%, p = 0.108). For PRT, the dosimetric metrics of VMAT plans, including PTV D mean, homogeneity index (HI), CI, and D max of spinal cord, were significantly better than those of IMRT plans. The VMAT plans save more than 45% time compared with IMRT plans (VMAT: 1.54 min, IMRT: 2.81 min, p < 0.001). The difference in gamma passing rates between VMAT plans and IMRT plans was not statistically significant. For the plan robustness, the DVHBW of VMAT plans and IMRT plans for BCR were 2.09% ± 0.23% and 2.98% ± 0.40%, respectively (p < 0.05). For PRT, the DVHBW of VMAT plans was significantly better than those of IMRT plans (VMAT: 3.05% ± 0.26%, IMRT: 3.57% ± 0.27%, p < 0.05). The results show that the dosimetric metrics of VMAT plans were comparable to those of IMRT plans. More importantly, the VMAT plans had excited dose distribution and fast execution efficiency. The plan robustness of VMAT plans were superior.