Volumetric Modulation Arc Radiotherapy With Flattening Filter-Free Beams Compared With Static Gantry IMRT and 3D Conformal Radiotherapy for Advanced Esophageal Cancer: A Feasibility Study

Purpose: A feasibility study was performed to evaluate RapidArc (RA), and the potential benefit of flattening filter-free beams, on advanced esophageal cancer against intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). Methods and Materials: The plans for 3D-CRT and IMRT with three to seven and five to seven fixed beams were compared against double-modulated arcs with avoidance sectors to spare the lungs for 10 patients. All plans were optimized for 6-MV photon beams. The RA plans were studied for conventional and flattening filter-free (FFF) beams. The objectives for the planning target volume were the volume receiving ≥95% or at most 107% of the prescribed dose of <1% with a dose prescription of 59.4 Gy. For the organs at risk, the lung volume (minus the planning target volume) receiving ≥5 Gy was <60%, that receiving 20 Gy was <20%-30%, and the mean lung dose was <15.0 Gy. The heart volume receiving 45 Gy was <20%, volume receiving 30 Gy was <50%. The spinal dose received by 1% was <45 Gy. The technical delivery parameters for RA were assessed to compare the normal and FFF beam characteristics. Results: RA and IMRT provided equivalent coverage and homogeneity, slightly superior to 3D-CRT. The conformity index was 1.2 ± 0.1 for RA and IMRT and 1.5 ± 0.2 for 3D-CRT. The mean lung dose was 12.2 ± 4.5 for IMRT, 11.3 ± 4.6 for RA, and 10.8 ± 4.4 for RA with FFF beams, 18.2 ± 8.5 for 3D-CRT. The percentage of volume receiving ≥20 Gy ranged from 23.6% ± 9.1% to 21.1% ± 9.7% for IMRT and RA (FFF beams) and 39.2% ± 17.0% for 3D-CRT. The heart and spine objectives were met by all techniques. The monitor units for IMRT and RA were 457 ± 139, 322 ± 20, and 387 ± 40, respectively. RA with FFF beams showed, compared with RA with normal beams, a ∼20% increase in monitor units per Gray, a 90% increase in the average dose rate, and 20% reduction in beam on time (owing to different gantry speeds). Conclusion: RA demonstrated, compared with conventional IMRT, a similar target coverage and some better dose sparing to the organs at risk; the advantage against conventional 3D-CRT was more evident. RA with FFF beams resulted in minor improvements in plan quality but with the potential for additional useful reduction in the treatment time