Dosimetric impact of different multileaf collimators on prostate intensity modulated treatment planning

AimThe main purpose of this study is to perform a dosimetric comparison on target volumes and organs at risks (OARs) between prostate intensity modulated treatment plans (IMRT) optimized with different multileaf collimators (MLCs).BackgroundThe use of MLCs with a small leaf width in the IMRT optimization may improve conformity around the tumor target whilst reducing the dose to normal tissues.Materials and methodsTwo linacs mounting MLCs with 5 and 10 mm leaf-width, respectively, implemented in Pinnacle³ treatment planning system were used for this work. Nineteen patients with prostate carcinoma undergoing a radiotherapy treatment were enrolled. Treatment planning with different setup arrangements (7 and 5 beams) were performed for each patient and each machine. Dose volume histograms (DVHs) cut-off points were used in the treatment planning comparison.ResultsComparable planning target volume (PTV) coverage was obtained with 7- and 5-beam configuration (both with 5 and 10 mm MLC leaf-width). The comparison of bladder and rectum DVH cut-off points for the 5-beam arrangement shows that 52.6% of the plans optimized with a larger leaf-width did not satisfy at least one of the OARs’ constraints. This percentage is reduced to 10.5% for the smaller leaf-width. If a 7-beam arrangement is used the value of 52.6% decreases to 21.1% while the value of 10.5% remains unchanged.ConclusionMLCs collimators with different widths and number of leaves lead to a comparable prostate treatment planning if a proper adjustment is made of the number of gantry angles.     

Flattening Filter-Free Beams in Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Sinonasal Cancer

Purpose

To evaluate the dosimetric impacts of flattening filter-free (FFF) beams in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for sinonasal cancer.

Methods

For fourteen cases, IMRT and VMAT planning was performed using 6-MV photon beams with both conventional flattened and FFF modes. The four types of plans were compared in terms of target dose homogeneity and conformity, organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing, number of monitor units (MUs) per fraction, treatment time and pure beam-on time.

Results

FFF beams led to comparable target dose homogeneity, conformity, increased number of MUs and lower doses to the spinal cord, brainstem and normal tissue, compared with flattened beams in both IMRT and VMAT. FFF beams in IMRT resulted in improvements by up to 5.4% for sparing of the contralateral optic structures, with shortened treatment time by 9.5%. However, FFF beams provided comparable overall OAR sparing and treatment time in VMAT. With FFF mode, VMAT yielded inferior homogeneity and superior conformity compared with IMRT, with comparable overall OAR sparing and significantly shorter treatment time.

Conclusions

Using FFF beams in IMRT and VMAT is feasible for the treatment of sinonasal cancer. Our results suggest that the delivery mode of FFF beams may play an encouraging role with better sparing of contralateral optic OARs and treatment efficiency in IMRT, but yield comparable results in VMAT.     

Radiotherapy for the treatment of pituitary adenomas: A dosimetric comparison of three planning techniques

AimOur goal was to compare conformal 3D (C3D) radiotherapy (RT), modulated intensity RT (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning techniques in treating pituitary adenomas.BackgroundRT is important for managing pituitary adenomas. Treatment planning advances allow for higher radiation dosing with less risk of affecting organs at risk (OAR).Materials and methodsWe conducted a 5-year retrospective review of patients with pituitary adenoma treated with external beam radiation therapy (C3D with flattening filter, flattening filter-free [FFF], IMRT, and VMAT). We compared dose-volume histogram data. For OARs, we recorded D2%, maximum, and mean doses. For planning target volume (PTV), we registered V95%, V107%, D95%, D98%, D50%, D2%, minimum dose, conformity index (CI), and homogeneity index (HI).ResultsFifty-eight patients with pituitary adenoma were included. Target-volume coverage was acceptable for all techniques. The HI values were 0.06, IMRT; 0.07, VMAT; 0.08, C3D; and 0.09, C3D FFF (p < 0.0001). VMAT and IMRT provided the best target volume conformity (CI, 0.64 and 0.74, respectively; p < 0.0001). VMAT yielded the lowest doses to the optic pathway, lens, and cochlea. The position of the neck in extreme flexion showed that it helps in planning mainly with VMAT by allowing only one arc to be used and achieving the desired conformity, decreasing the treatment time, while allowing greater protection to the organs of risk using C3D, C3DFFF.ConclusionsOur results confirmed that EBRT in pituitary adenomas using IMRT, VMAT, C3D, C3FFF provide adequate coverage to the target. VMAT with a single arc or incomplete arc had a better compliance with desired dosimetric goals, such as target coverage and normal structures dose constraints, as well as shorter treatment time. Neck extreme flexion may have benefits in treatment planning for better preservation of organs at risk. C3D with extreme neck flexion is an appropriate treatment option when other treatment techniques are not available.     

Time and frequency to observe fiducial markers in MLC-modulated fields during prostate IMRT/VMAT beam delivery

ObjectiveThis work investigates the time and frequency to observe fiducial markers in MLC-modulated fields during intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) beam delivery for real-time prostate localization.MethodsThirty seven prostate patients treated with IMRT or VMAT were included in this retrospective study. DRR images were generated for all MLC segments/control points using the TPS. The MLC leaf pattern of each control point was overlaid on the DRR, and the number of fiducials within the MLC opening was analyzed. EPID images of fiducials in a pelvic phantom were obtained to demonstrate the fiducial visibility during modulated beam delivery.ResultsGold fiducials were visible on EPID images. The probability of seeing a number of fiducials within the MLC opening was analyzed. At least one fiducial was visible during 42 ± 2% and 52 ± 2% beam-on time for IMRT of the prostate with and without lymph nodes, and during 81 ± 4% and 80 ± 5% beam-on time for VMAT of the prostate with and without lymph nodes, respectively. The mean time interval to observe at least one fiducial was 8.4 ± 0.7 and 5.9 ± 0.5 s for IMRT of the prostate with and without the lymph nodes, respectively, and 1.6 ± 0.1 s for VMAT prostate patients. The estimated potential dosimetric uncertainty was 7% and 2% for IMRT and VMAT, respectively.ConclusionsOur results demonstrated that the time and frequency to observe fiducial markers in MLC-modulated fields during IMRT/VMAT beam delivery were adequate for real-time prostate localization. The beam’s eye view fiducial positions could be used for intrafractional target monitoring and motion correction in prostate radiotherapy.     

VMAT-like plans for magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy: Addressing unmet needs

PurposeVMAT delivery technique is currently not applicable to Magnetic Resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) hybrid systems. Aim of this study is to evaluate an innovative VMAT-like (VML) delivery technique.Material and methodsFirst, planning and dosimetric evaluation of the MRgRT VML treatment have been performed on 10 different disease sites and the results have been compared with the corresponding IMRT plans. Then, in the second phase, 10 of the most dosimetrically challenging locally advanced pancreas treatment plans have been retrospectively re-planned using the VML approach to explore the potentiality of this new delivery technique. Finally, VML robustness was evaluated and compared with the IMRT plans, considering a lateral positioning error of ± 5 mm.ResultsIn phase one, all VML plans were within constraint for all OARs. When PTV coverage is considered, in the 50% of the cases VML PTV coverage is equal or higher than in IMRT plan. In the remaining 50%, the highest target under coverage difference in comparison with IMRT plan is −1.71%. The mean and maximum treatment time differences (VML-IMRT) is 0.2 min and 3.1 min respectively. In phase two, the treatment time variation (VML-IMRT), shows a mean, maximum and minimum variations of 1.3, 4.6 and −0.6 min respectively. All VML plans have a better target coverage if compared with IMRT plans, keeping in any case the OARs constraints within tolerance. VML doesn’t increase plan robustness.ConclusionVMAT-like treatment approach appeared to be an efficient planning solution and it was decided to clinically implement it in daily practice, especially in the frame of hypo fractionated treatments.     

Dosimetric sensitivity of leaf width on volumetric modulated arc therapy plan quality: an objective approach

BackgroundSeveral authors investigated a dosimetric impact of leaf width on radiotherapy plan quality subjectively, and concluded that thinner leaf-width multileaf collimators (MLC) are beneficial because of their better coverage of clinically relevant structures. Study aimed to investigate the dosimetric effect of MLC leaf width on volumetric modulated arc therapy plan quality by objective approach.Materials and methodsTwelve of each prostate and head-and-neck patients were planned for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatments for MLC leaf widths of 4 mm and 10 mm. Three different VMAT schemes single-arc, dual-arc and two combined independent single-arcs were optimized. Dose volume histogram and Isodose distribution were used for quantitative and qualitative comparison of the treatment plan, respectively. Dose-volume-indices of the planning target volume, organs at risk and number of delivered monitor units were compared. The 4 mm leaf width being reference over 10 mm and results were noted as statistically significant if p ≤ 0.05 using student t-test.ResultsAll VMAT schemes for both tumor sites showed a gain in target coverage, similar organs at risk doses and higher monitor units to be delivered, when changing leaf width from 10 mm to 4 mm. The p-values were significant for majority of head-and-neck dose indices.ConclusionThe thinner-leaf MLCs, owing to their better spatial resolution, result in an overall gain for target coverage, while maintaining permissible doses to the organs at risk.     

Monte Carlo dose verification of VMAT treatment plans using Elekta Agility 160-leaf MLC

In this study, we verified volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans in an Elekta Synergy system with an integrated Agility 160-leaf multileaf collimator (MLC) by comparing them with Monte Carlo (MC)-calculated dose distributions using the AAPM TG-119 structure sets. The head configuration of the linear accelerator with the integrated MLC was simulated with the EGSnrc/BEAMnrc code. Firstly, the dosimetric properties of the MLC were evaluated with the MC technique and film measurements. Next, VMAT plans were created with the Pinnacle³ treatment planning system (TPS) for four regions in the AAPM TG-119 structures. They were then verified by comparing them with MC-calculated dose distributions using dose volume histograms (DVHs) and three-dimensional (3D) gamma analysis. The MC simulations for the Agility MLC dosimetric properties were in acceptable agreement with measurements. TPS-VMAT plans using TG-119 structure sets agreed with MC dose distributions within 2% in the comparison of D₉₅ in planning target volumes (PTVs) evaluated from DVHs. In contrast, higher dose regions such as D₂₀, D₁₀, and D₅ in PTVs for TPS tended to be smaller than MC values. This tendency was particularly noticeable for mock head and neck with complicated structures. In 3D gamma analysis, the passing rates with 3%/3mm criteria in PTVs were ≥99%, except for mock head and neck (89.5%). All passing rates for organs at risk (OARs) were in acceptable agreement of >96%. It is useful to verify dose distributions of PTVs and OARs in TPS-VMAT plans by using MC dose calculations and 3D gamma analysis.     

Multi-institutional evaluation using the end-to-end test for implementation of dynamic techniques of radiation therapy in Thailand

AimIn this study, an accuracy survey of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric arc radiation therapy (VMAT) implementation in radiotherapy centers in Thailand was conducted.BackgroundIt is well recognized that there is a need for radiotherapy centers to evaluate the accuracy levels of their current practices, and use the related information to identify opportunities for future development.Materials and methodsAn end-to-end test using a CIRS thorax phantom was carried out at 8 participating centers. Based on each center's protocol for simulation and planning, linac-based IMRT or VMAT plans were generated following the IAEA (CRP E24017) guidelines. Point doses in the region of PTVs and OARs were obtained from 5 ionization chamber readings and the dose distribution from the radiochromic films. The global gamma indices of the measurement doses and the treatment planning system calculation doses were compared.ResultsThe large majority of the RT centers (6/8) fulfilled the dosimetric goals, with the measured and calculated doses at the specification points agreeing within ±3% for PTV and ±5% for OARS. At 2 centers, TPS underestimated the lung doses by about 6% and spinal cord doses by 8%. The mean percentage gamma pass rates for the 8 centers were 98.29 ± 0.67% (for the 3%/3 mm criterion) and 96.72 ± 0.84% (for the 2%/2 mm criterion).ConclusionsThe 8 participating RT centers achieved a satisfactory quality level of IMRT/VMAT clinical implementation.     

Influence of multi-leaf collimator leaf width in radiosurgery via volumetric modulated arc therapy and 3D dynamic conformal arc therapy

PurposeTo study the influence of Multileaf Collimator (MLC) leaf width in radiosurgery treatment planning for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and 3D Dynamic Conformal Arc Therapy (3D-DCA).Material and methods16 patients with solitary brain metastases treated with radiosurgery via the non-coplanar VMAT were replanned for the 3D-DCA. For each planning technique two MLC leaf width sizes were utilized, i.e. 5 mm and 2.5 mm. These treatment plans were compared using dosimetric indices (conformity, gradient and mean dose for brain tissue) and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP).ResultsAn improvement in planning quality for VMAT was observed versus 3D-DCA for any MLC leaf width, mainly with regards to dose conformity and to a lesser extent regards dose gradient. No significant difference was observed for any of both techniques using smaller leaf width. However, dose gradient was improved in favor of the 2.5 mm MLC for either of both techniques (15% VMAT and 10% 3D-DCA); being noticeable for lesions smaller than 10 cm³. Nonetheless, the NTCP index was not significantly affected by variations in the dose gradient index.ConclusionsThis, our present study, suggests that the use of an MLC leaf width of 2.5 mm via the noncoplanar VMAT and 3D-DCA techniques provides improvement in terms of dose gradient for small volumes, over those results obtained with an MLC leaf width of 5 mm. The 3D-DCA does also benefit from MLC leaf widths of a smaller size, mainly in terms of conformity.     

Dosimetric study of a hybrid plan technique for external beam radiotherapy in patients with cervical cancer

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a hybrid technique which results from combining intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for the treatment of cervical cancer patients. Plans made with the hybrid technique and pure IMRT and VMAT were retrospectively compared in 20 patients with cervical cancer at different stages. All plans were made using the same contours based on the original computed tomography (CT) scans. Conformity (CI) and homogeneity (HI) indices of the planning target volumes (PTVs) were calculated for each technique in order to evaluate plan quality. All techniques were compared in terms of dose to organs at risk (OARs), number of monitor units (MUs) and treatment time. It turned out that plans made with the hybrid technique had improved dose conformity and homogeneity compared to plans made only with IMRT and VMAT (p < 0.001). Regarding the OARs, the maximum dose (D_max) delivered to the bladder, rectum and femoral heads was lower for the hybrid plans compared to the IMRT and VMAT plans (p < 0.001). The volumes irradiated to doses of 50 Gy (V_50Gy) for rectum, bladder and bowel were lower for the hybrid plans (p < 0.001, p = 0.002). Furthermore, the treatment time and MU values for the hybrid plans were found to be between of the values for the IMRT and VMAT plans. It is concluded that, as compared to IMRT and VMAT plans, the hybrid plan technique allowed a better conformity and homogeneity for the dose distribution in the PTV and a dose reduction to the OARs.

     

Determination of an inflection point for a dosimetric analysis of unflattened beam using the first principle of derivatives by python code programming

BackgroundPractice of Unflattened or Flattening filter free (FFF) beam has become the high dose standard in radiotherapy (RT), such as stereotactic radio-surgery (SRS) and stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT). The removal of a flattening filter (FF) from the path of a photon beam alters the characteristics of FFF beam. Since the conventional route for dosimetric analysis of FF beam cannot be applied to FFF beam, the procedure of analyzing beam characteristics for FFF beam based on inflection points (IPs) is used. IP is a point where the concavity change observed corresponds to its change in sign (±) of the second derivative.AimThe objective of the study is to determine IPs for dosimetric analysis of the FFF beam profile.Methods and materialsIn this study, IPs are determined through the python code programming based on the mathematical first principle of the derivative. They are compared with IPs estimated by the conventional graphical manual method using Microsoft Excel (MS). IPs and their dependent dosimetric parameters determined by both mathematical and graphical manual methods are compared.ResultPercentage differences between the IPs determined by both methods, for 6MVFFF inline and crossline beam profile are found to be 2.7% and 0.8% respectively. Similarly, the average penumbra differences for 6MVFFF inline and crossline beam profile are found to be 0.15 mm and 0.9 mm, respectively. However, differences in the field width between both methods are found insignificant.ConclusionGraphical manual method is very time-consuming, tedious and user dependent. However, the mathematical method through python code programming is more precise, faster and independent of individual users.     

Multi-institutional comparison of simulated treatment delivery errors in ssIMRT,manually planned VMAT and autoplan-VMAT plans for nasopharyngeal radiotherapy

PurposeTo quantify the impact of simulated errors for nasopharynx radiotherapy across multiple institutions and planning techniques (auto-plan generated Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (ap-VMAT), manually planned VMAT (mp-VMAT) and manually planned step and shoot Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (mp-ssIMRT)).MethodsTen patients were retrospectively planned with VMAT according to three institution’s protocols. Within one institution two further treatment plans were generated using differing treatment planning techniques. This resulted in mp-ssIMRT, mp-VMAT, and ap-VMAT plans. Introduced treatment errors included Multi Leaf Collimator (MLC) shifts, MLC field size (MLCfs), gantry and collimator errors. A change of more than 5% in most selected dose metrics was considered to have potential clinical impact. The original patient plan total Monitor Units (MUs) were correlated to the total number of dose metrics exceeded.ResultsThe impact of different errors was consistent, with ap-VMAT plans (two institutions) showing larger dose deviations than mp-VMAT created plans (one institution). Across all institutions’ VMAT plans the significant errors included; ±5° for the collimator angle, ±5 mm for the MLC shift and +1, ±2 and ±5 mm for the MLC field size. The total number of dose metrics exceeding tolerance was positively correlated to the VMAT total plan MUs (r = 0.51, p < 0.001), across all institutions and techniques.ConclusionsDifferences in VMAT robustness to simulated errors across institutions occurred due to planning method differences. Whilst ap-VMAT was most sensitive to MLC errors, it also produced the best quality treatment plans. Mp-ssIMRT was most robust to errors. Higher VMAT treatment plan complexity led to less robust plans.     

Dosimetric Comparison of the Simultaneous Integrated Boost in Whole-Breast Irradiation after Breast-Conserving Surgery: IMRT,IMRT plus an Electron Boost and VMAT

Objectives

To compare the target volume coverage and doses to organs at risks (OARs) using three techniques that simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in whole-breast irradiation (WBI) after breast-conserving surgery, including intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), IMRT plus an electron boost (IMRT-EB), and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

Methods

A total of 10 patients with early-stage left-sided breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery were included in this study. IMRT, IMRT-EB and VMAT plans were generated for each patient.

Results

The conformity index (CI) of the planning target volumes evaluation (PTV-Eval) of VMAT was significantly superior to those of IMRT and IMRT-EB (P < 0.05). The CI of the PTV Eval-boost of VMAT was better than that of IMRT (P = 0.018) and IMRT-EB (P < 0.001), while the CI of the PTV Eval-boost of IMRT was better than that of IMRT-EB (P = 0.002). The V5, V10 and Dmean in ipsilateral lung with VMAT were significantly higher than IMRT (P < 0.05) and IMRT-EB (P < 0.05). The Dmean, V5 and V10 in heart with VMAT were significantly greater than those of IMRT and IMRT-EB (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the OARs between IMRT and IMRT-EB (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Considered the target volume coverage and radiation dose delivered to the OARs (especially the heart and lung), IMRT may be more suitable for the SIB in WBI than IMRT-EB and VMAT. Additional clinical studies with a larger sample size will be needed to assess the long-term feasibility and efficacy of SIB using different radiotherapy techniques.     

Dosimetric evaluation of irregular surface compensator and intensity-modulated radiotherapy in breast radiotherapy

BackgroundThis dosimetric study aims to evaluate the dosimetric advantage of the irregular surface compensator (ISC) compared with the intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).Materials and methodsTen patients with whole breast irradiation were planned with the ISC and IMRT techniques. Six different beam directions were selected for IMRT and ISC plans. The treatment plans were evaluated with respect to planning target coverage, dose homogeneity index (DHI) and organs at risk (OARs) sparing. Monitor units (MUs) and the delivery time were analysed for treatment efficiency.ResultsThe ISC technique provides a better coverage of the PTV and statistically significantly better homogeneity of the dose distribution. For the ipsilateral lung and heart, ISC and IMRT techniques deliver almost the same dose in all plans. However, MU counts and delivery time were significantly lower with the IMRT technique (p < 0.05).ConclusionFor breast radiotherapy, when the ISC method was compared to the IMRT method, ISC provided better dose distribution for the target.     

Incorrect dosimetric leaf separation in IMRT and VMAT treatment planning: Clinical impact and correlation with pretreatment quality assurance

PurposeDynamic treatment planning algorithms use a dosimetric leaf separation (DLS) parameter to model the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) characteristics. Here, we quantify the dosimetric impact of an incorrect DLS parameter and investigate whether common pretreatment quality assurance (QA) methods can detect this effect.Methods16 treatment plans with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique for multiple treatment sites were calculated with a correct and incorrect setting of the DLS, corresponding to a MLC gap difference of 0.5 mm. Pretreatment verification QA was performed with a bi-planar diode array phantom and the electronic portal imaging device (EPID). Measurements were compared to the correct and incorrect planned doses using gamma evaluation with both global (G) and local (L) normalization. Correlation, specificity and sensitivity between the dose volume histogram (DVH) points for the planning target volume (PTV) and the gamma passing rates were calculated.ResultsThe change in PTV and organs at risk DVH parameters were 0.4–4.1%. Good correlation (>0.83) between the PTV_mean dose deviation and measured gamma passing rates was observed. Optimal gamma settings with 3%L/3 mm (per beam and composite plan) and 3%G/2 mm (composite plan) for the diode array phantom and 2%G/2 mm (composite plan) for the EPID system were found. Global normalization and per beam ROC analysis of the diode array phantom showed an area under the curve <0.6.ConclusionsA DLS error can worsen pretreatment QA using gamma analysis with reasonable credibility for the composite plan. A low detectability was demonstrated for a 3%G/3 mm per beam gamma setting.     

Comparison of dosimetric variation between prostate IMRT and VMAT due to patient's weight loss: Patient and phantom study

Aim

This study compared the dosimetric impact between prostate IMRT and VMAT due to patient''s weight loss.

Background

Dosimetric variation due to change of patient''s body contour is difficult to predict in prostate IMRT and VMAT, since a large number of small and irregular segmental fields is used in the delivery.

Materials and methods

Five patients with prostate volumes ranging from 32.0 to 86.5 cm³ and a heterogeneous pelvis phantom were used for prostate IMRT and VMAT plans using the same set of dose–volume constraints. Doses in IMRT and VMAT plans were recalculated with the patient''s and phantom''s body contour reduced by 0.5–2 cm to mimic size reduction. Dose coverage/criteria of the PTV and CTV and critical organs (rectum, bladder and femoral heads) were compared between IMRT and VMAT.

Results

In IMRT plans, increases of the D99% for the PTV and CTV were equal to 4.0 ± 0.1% per cm of reduced depth, which were higher than those in VMAT plans (2.7 ± 0.24% per cm). Moreover, increases of the D30% of the rectum and bladder per reduced depth in IMRT plans (4.0 ± 0.2% per cm and 3.5 ± 0.5% per cm) were higher than those of VMAT (2.2 ± 0.2% per cm and 2.0 ± 0.6% per cm). This was also true for the increase of the D5% for the right femoral head in a patient or phantom with size reduction due to weight loss.

Conclusions

VMAT would be preferred to IMRT in prostate radiotherapy, when a patient has potential to suffer from weight loss during the treatment.     

Static and rotational intensity modulated techniques for head-neck cancer radiotherapy: A planning comparison

PurposeTo compare helical Tomotherapy (HT), two volumetric-modulated arc techniques and conventional fixed-field intensity modulated techniques (S-IMRT) for head-neck (HN) cancers.Methods and materialsEighteen HN patients were considered. Four treatment plans were generated for each patient: HT, S-IMRT optimised with Eclipse treatment planning system and two volumetric techniques using Elekta–Oncentra approach (VMAT) and Varian-RapidArc (RA), using two full arcs. All techniques were optimised to simultaneously deliver 66Gy to PTV1 (GTV and enlarged nodes) and 54Gy to PTV2 (subclinical and electively treated nodes). Comparisons were assessed on several dosimetric parameters and, secondarily, on planned MUs and delivery time.ResultsConcerning PTV coverage, significantly better results were found for HT and RA. HT significantly improved the target coverage both compared to S-IMRT and VMAT. No significant differences were found between S-IMRT and volumetric techniques in terms of dose homogeneity. For OARs, all the techniques were able to satisfy all hard constraints; significantly better results were found for HT, especially in the intermediate dose range (15–30 Gy). S-IMRT reached a significantly better OARs sparing with respect to VMAT and RA. No significant differences were found for body mean dose, excepting higher values of V5–V10 for HT. A reduction of planned MUs and delivery treatment time was found with volumetric techniques.ConclusionsThe objectives of satisfying target coverage and sparing of critical structures were reached with all techniques. S-IMRT techniques were found more advantageous compared to RA and VMAT for OARs sparing. HT reached the best overall treatment plan quality.