MARATTO

article · Egyptian Journal of Cancer and Biomedical Research.

Dosimetric Comparison between Flattening Filter Free Coplanar and Non-Coplanar Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Lung Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy.

2025Open accessAlexandria University

Abstract

The target of this study's project was to evaluate the variations between non-coplanar and coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy for flattening filter-free stereotactic body radiotherapy in the lungs and determine which is more accurate in terms of dose delivery to the target tumor and preservation of surrounding normal tissues. Methods: Fifteen cases had non-small cell lung cancer tumors with varying positions and sizes that had been treated. For each case, two plans have been created: coplanar and non-coplanar volumetric modulated therapy using a two half arcs plan. Four-dimensional computed tomography had been performed on each case. The recommended dosage is 48 Gy divided into 4 sessions. Results: Regarding both plans, the mean of the conformality index and gradient index values for coplanar and non-coplanar VMAT plans, respectively, are 0.98 vs. 1.0 and 3.75 vs. 3.4, exhibiting a statistically significant variation (P = 0.001). Concerning organs at risk, there was a significant benefit to include non-coplanar arcs in preserving a healthy lung. The non-coplanar plan's average V20% values are 4.18 Gy, yet the coplanar plan are 4.49 Gy, exhibiting a statistically significant variation (P = 0.001). The average value of spinal cord volume <0.35 cc for the non-coplanar plan is 6.35 Gy compared to the coplanar plan, which is 7.21 Gy, and this is statistically significant (P = 0.017). Conclusions: In many cases, the non-coplanar method demonstrated greater target coverage and sparing of essential structures, especially for tumors with unusual shapes or those positioned adjacent to critical structures.

Research topics

  • Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.21608/jcbr.2025.339796.1377

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.