Comparative Analysis of VMAT and IMRT Techniques: Evaluation of Dose Constraints and Bone Marrow Sparing in Cervical Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemoradiotherapy.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Carcinoma of the cervix is a globally significant cause of morbidity and mortality among women. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy, a standard approach for locally advanced cervical cancer, invariably involves pelvic irradiation. Although this strategy is effective, it inevitably affects the pelvic bone marrow, a crucial hematopoietic site, and leads to hematological toxicity The potential of IMRT to spare bone marrow in pelvic irradiation settings has been an area of significant interest, with the aim to mitigate the hematological toxicity associated with pelvic radiotherapy. Radiotherapy techniques have evolved in terms of conformity and normal tissue sparing. Our study intends to explore the use of BM sparing techniques among patients of carcinoma cervix. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty patients of carcinoma cervix FIGO Stage IIIB treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy were selected for this study. The external contour of bones was delineated on planning CT as a surrogate for BM. We generated three plans on a single patient1. without BM as the dose constraint, namely N-IMRT plan; 2. with BM constraint, namely BMS-IMRT plan; 3. VMAT plan in which BM constraint was given. The dose volume histogram (DVH) for planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR) were analyzed. BM parameters V10, V20, V30, V40, mean, maximum and minimum dose were compared.  Results: PTV coverage was comparable in all techniques. VMAT plans resulted in superior BM sparing compared with N-IMRT plan (P-<0.001) and BMS-IMRT plan (P-<0.001, 0.021 and 0.001 respectively for V20, V30 and V40). VMAT plans had better CI compared with BMS-IMRT (P-0.002) and N-IMRT (P-0.001) plans. CONCLUSION: Our study adds to the growing evidence that VMAT might be the preferred technique for patients with carcinoma of the cervix undergoing concurrent chemoradiotherapy, as it provides comparable target coverage and better sparing of bone marrow compared to IMRT.