Elsevier

Cancer Treatment Reviews

Volume 36, Issue 5, August 2010, Pages 393-399
Cancer Treatment Reviews

ANTI-TUMOUR TREATMENT
New developments in arc radiation therapy: A review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2010.01.004Get rights and content

Abstract

Arc therapies have gained widespread clinical interest in radiation oncology over the past decade. Arc therapies have several potential advantages over standard techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, with implications for patients, administrators, and oncologists. This review focuses on the rationale for arc therapy, descriptions of the modern arc techniques that are currently clinically available, and highlights some distinguishing features of arc therapies, such as dose distributions, treatment times, and imaging capabilities. Arc therapies are exciting examples of progress in radiotherapy through technological innovation, aimed at ultimately improving the therapeutic ratio for patients receiving radiation.

Introduction

The technologies available for delivering radiation therapy have advanced dramatically in the past few decades. In the 1980s, two-dimensional radiotherapy was the standard of care, relying on radiographs and anatomical knowledge for target localization. The advent of CT scanning for radiotherapy planning ushered in the era of 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT, Fig. 1A), in which 3D images of tumors, normal structures, and dose distributions could be constructed.1

In the 1990s, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) was introduced. IMRT divides each large radiation beam into numerous small beamlets, and adjusts the intensity of each beamlet individually.2 With IMRT, it is much easier to achieve complex dose distributions (such as the sparing of the spinal cord and parotid shown in Fig. 1B) that are difficult to create with 3D-CRT. As a result, IMRT treatment plans are more conformal and allow for lower doses to organs at risk. Like 3D-CRT, IMRT is delivered using fixed beams that do not rotate while the beam is on, although the shape of the beam may change. IMRT generally requires more beams than 3D-CRT – often 5–9 beams are used for each fraction. Beam directions are chosen that allow the whole target to be encompassed while avoiding normal tissues as much as possible. Unfortunately the best angles for treatment are not always obvious.3

Compared to 3D-CRT, IMRT provides greater flexibility in controlling each beam, ultimately improving dose distributions and reducing toxicity.[2], [4] IMRT can also allow for dose escalation, delivering higher doses to the tumor while maintaining acceptable doses to critical organs at risk, such as the spinal cord. A systematic review of comparative clinical IMRT studies, including three randomized trials, confirmed that IMRT can reduce toxicity for various treatment sites, although effects on local control and survival outcomes are inconclusive.4

The benefits of IMRT come at a cost. Firstly, IMRT plans are more complex and take longer to deliver, prolonging the time that a patient spends on the radiotherapy machine and decreasing patient throughput. Secondly, IMRT can result in increased integral dose – a larger volume of normal tissues receives low doses of radiation. This effect can be seen in the areas around the target (where the beams enter and exit) and also in areas far from the target. This increase in integral dose with IMRT has in turn led to concerns about a potential increased risk of secondary malignancy.[5], [6] Thirdly, the increased treatment time with IMRT has led to concerns about increased tumor cell repair during the time required to deliver treatment.7

Two clinical developments in radiation oncology underscore the drawbacks of fixed-field treatments, whether delivered by IMRT or 3D-CRT: image-guided radiotherapy and hypofractionation. Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) refers to the use of imaging (such as X-rays or CT scans) immediately before or during treatment, to ensure that the patient and tumor are in the correct position. IGRT allows radiation oncologists to reduce the ‘safety margins’ that account for uncertainty in positioning, thereby reducing the volume of tissue that receives radiation.4 However, use of image guidance increases the time that a patient spends on the radiotherapy table and can also increase the integral radiation dose, further compounding the drawbacks of IMRT. The second development, hypofractionation, refers to the practice of delivering large daily doses, more than the conventional 2 Gy per day. With hypofractionation, fraction sizes can be very large: for stereotactic lung radiotherapy, three fractions of 20 Gy are commonly employed, and achieves excellent rates of local control.8 However, when delivered with fixed-fields using image-guidance, these treatments can require up to 45 min to deliver.

Arc therapy has emerged as a technique to address some of the limitations of fixed-field treatments. In contrast to fixed-field IMRT, arc therapy incorporates rotation of the beam relative to the patient while the beam is on. In most cases, the patient is treated from all angles, in one or more 360-degree rotations. The major conceptual advantage of arc therapy over standard fixed-field IMRT techniques is that since the radiation source is rotating around the patient, all angles are available to deliver radiation to the target while avoiding critical structures, and time is used efficiently because the radiation delivery does not stop in between different beam angles. Selection of angles for fixed-field IMRT can be difficult,3 and arc therapies can overcome this difficulty by allowing the tumor to be treated from all angles.

In essence, all modern arc therapies are a form of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and theoretically they retain the same advantages and disadvantages over 3D-CRT, trading off improved dosimetry for higher integral dose and in some cases increased treatment time. However, arc therapies have several potential advantages over IMRT (Table 1), most importantly improvements in dose distributions and treatment times.

Modern arc therapies can be broadly classified as one of two types: tomotherapy (Fig. 2) and volumetric arc therapy (Fig. 3). Tomotherapy was first introduced in 1993,9 and is analogous to CT imaging in that a thin beam of radiation is used to treat the patient in slices (axial tomotherapy) or in a spiral (helical tomotherapy) as the patient moves through the tomotherapy machine.10 Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) differs in that it can treat the whole tumor volume at once, rather than in slices, and is delivered using a standard linear accelerator.11 There are several variations on VMAT, with names such as RapidArc™, SmartArc™, intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT) and arc-modulated radiation therapy (AMRT), but the general concepts of these are similar.[11], [12], [13], [14]

Section snippets

Tomotherapy

Tomotherapy is literally defined as ‘slice therapy’, and is best described as a combination of a CT scanner and a linear accelerator.[9], [15] As in CT scanning, the patient is moved through the machine as a radiation source rotates through 360° (Fig. 2A and B). The machine produces a thin fan-shaped beam of radiation, and as the beam rotates, the shape of the beam is adjusted. Axial tomotherapy involves treating a slice of the target and then translating the patient before treating the next

Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)

In 2007, a novel form of arc therapy called VMAT was introduced.11 With VMAT, the gantry is rotated while the beam is on, and three parameters can be changed as the beam is rotated: the dose rate, the shape of the beam, and the speed of rotation.11 VMAT is analogous to tomotherapy, in that radiotherapy can be delivered from up to 360° of beam angles, but differs in that it can be delivered on a conventional linear accelerator, and that the whole volume can be treated at once. VMAT can deliver a

Direct comparisons between systems

Since VMAT is a relatively new innovation, it has not yet been comprehensively compared with tomotherapy, although a few early reports have been published. For example, Fogliata et al. compared RapidArc with helical tomotherapy as components of two planning studies, and concluded no clinically significant dosimetric differences could be seen between the RapidArc and tomotherapy plans.[35], [36]

Since VMAT, tomotherapy, and fixed-field IMRT are all highly sophisticated techniques, it may be that

Efficiency and treatment time

The major difference between VMAT and the other techniques (fixed-field IMRT and tomotherapy) appears to be improved efficiency, resulting in faster treatment times. Prolonged treatment time has been identified as one of the drawbacks of standard fixed-field IMRT. In some cases, the time required to deliver a fraction of a complex IMRT plan can be in excess of 15–30 min,[38], [39], [40] whereas most fractions of 3D-CRT require only a few minutes, depending on complexity. This has been often

Versatility

Like IMRT, VMAT is delivered using a standard linear accelerator, which allows the flexibility to employ the other features of the linear accelerators (e.g. electrons, varied energies of photons) for other patients who do not require VMAT. Tomotherapy machines are constrained to deliver only tomotherapy, although a new modification is forthcoming that can allow the beam to remain stationary, for situations where fixed beams are more appropriate.52

By nature of its design, tomotherapy has the

Future directions

Tomotherapy and VMAT are still relatively new technologies in radiation oncology. They will continue to be tested and refined, and new systems and algorithms and are likely to come into clinical use in the near future.[12], [14] Recently, a new system has been introduced, named Vero, which can deliver arc therapy and may provide more flexibility in tumor tracking.53 Data on cost-effectiveness and long-term efficacy are anticipated as these treatments mature. It is likely that in the future,

Conclusions

Arc-based radiotherapy is a complex approach to IMRT made possible by advances in technology. Compared to standard fixed-field IMRT, arc-based radiotherapy allows tumors to be treated from all angles, and can provide advantages in terms of dose distribution, ease of real-time imaging, reduced treatment time, and/or reduced monitor unit requirements. Tomotherapy has the longest history of clinical experience, and can produce highly conformal dose distributions using a helical delivery analogous

Conflict of interest statement

The VUMC has a research collaboration with Varian Medical Systems, and Dr. Otto has received financial support from Varian Medical Systems.

Authors’ contributions

All authors (DP, WV, KO and SS) contributed to study conception, design, and data acquisition. DP and SS drafted the manuscript, and all authors revised it critically for important intellectual content. All have given final approval.

Acknowledgements

Dr. Palma’s work is supported by the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists Elekta Research Fellowship, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, and the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research. No sponsor has contributed directly to this work.

References (62)

  • T.F. Lee et al.

    Dosimetric comparisons of helical tomotherapy and step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma

    Radiother Oncol

    (2008)
  • H. Aoyama et al.

    Integral radiation dose to normal structures with conformal external beam radiation

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2006)
  • D. Palma et al.

    Volumetric modulated arc therapy for delivery of prostate radiotherapy: comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2008)
  • A. Clivio et al.

    Volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinomas of the anal canal: a treatment planning comparison with fixed field IMRT

    Radiother Oncol

    (2009)
  • L. Cozzi et al.

    A treatment planning study comparing volumetric arc modulation with RapidArc and fixed field IMRT for cervix uteri radiotherapy

    Radiother Oncol

    (2008)
  • W.F. Verbakel et al.

    Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs. conventional IMRT in head-and-neck cancer: a comparative planning and dosimetric study

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2009)
  • E. Vanetti et al.

    Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinomas of the oro-pharynx, hypo-pharynx and larynx: a treatment planning comparison with fixed field IMRT

    Radiother Oncol

    (2009)
  • W.F. Verbakel et al.

    Rapid delivery of stereotactic radiotherapy for peripheral lung tumors using volumetric intensity-modulated arcs

    Radiother Oncol

    (2009)
  • J.L. Bedford et al.

    Commissioning of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2009)
  • A. Fogliata et al.

    Intensity modulation with photons for benign intracranial tumours: a planning comparison of volumetric single arc, helical arc and fixed gantry techniques

    Radiother Oncol

    (2008)
  • R. Mohan

    Dueling technologies: in regard to Ling et al. (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72:575–581)

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2009)
  • E.A. Miles et al.

    The impact of introducing intensity modulated radiotherapy into routine clinical practice

    Radiotherapy Oncol

    (2005)
  • P. Xia et al.

    Comparison of treatment plans involving intensity-modulated radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2000)
  • M.S. Hoogeman et al.

    Time dependence of intrafraction patient motion assessed by repeat stereoscopic imaging

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2008)
  • J.F. Fowler et al.

    Loss of biological effect in prolonged fraction delivery

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2004)
  • Q.J. Wu et al.

    Volumetric arc intensity-modulated therapy for spine body radiotherapy: comparison with static intensity-modulated treatment

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2009)
  • C.C. Ling et al.

    Scylla and Charybdis: longer beam-on time or lesser conformality–the dilemma of tomotherapy

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2009)
  • M. Mehta et al.

    Commissioning and quality assurance of RapidArc radiotherapy delivery system: In Regard to Ling et al. (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72;575–581): absence of data does not constitute proof; The proof is in tasting the pudding

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2009)
  • C.C. Ling et al.

    Commissioning and quality assurance of RapidArc radiotherapy delivery system

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2008)
  • T. Reynders et al.

    Dosimetric assessment of static and helical tomotherapy in the clinical implementation of breast cancer treatments

    Radiotherapy Oncol

    (2009)
  • Y. Kamino et al.

    Development of a four-dimensional image-guided radiotherapy system with a gimbaled X-ray head

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2006)
  • Cited by (112)

    • Radiotherapy: technical aspects

      2023, Medicine (United Kingdom)
      Citation Excerpt :

      There is a reduction in treatment toxicity with IMRT although as yet no definitive randomized evidence of improved overall survival. Arc therapy is a form of IMRT in which instead of radiotherapy being delivered from multiple static beam positions, the gantry rotates around the patient with the radiation beam continuously switched on and the MLCs continually moving.2 Improved dose distributions can be achieved compared with 3D-CRT and IMRT.

    • Nanocarriers-mediated therapeutics as a promising approach for treatment and diagnosis of lung cancer

      2021, Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is generally used during stage I NSCLC treatment. The advanced treatment modalities, including image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT), positron emission tomography (PET), intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy facilitate targeted delivery of lethal doses of radiation to the malignant cells and reduce damage to surrounding healthy tissues [50,51]. Exposure to radiation causes pneumonitis and toxicity and damages bronchial tree and surrounding cells with loss of lung functions [52,53].

    • Photon beam energy dependent single-arc volumetric modulated arc optimization

      2021, Physica Medica
      Citation Excerpt :

      In general, these advancements are motivated by the desire of enhancing treatment efficiency and improving dose distributions. A major advantage of VMAT over IMRT is improved efficiency and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) while maintaining the target dose distributions [3,4]. Since the introduction of the VMAT, different optimization strategies have been proposed to achieve desired dosimetric goals, one being using the additional degrees of freedom of the linear accelerators.

    • Radiotherapy: technical aspects

      2020, Medicine (United Kingdom)
    • Complexity in Radiation Therapy: It's Complicated

      2020, International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text