758 / 1542
Comparison of competing techniques
CRT, Standard IMRT, VMAT
•
IMRT (HT-VMAT) vs conventional CRT
→
highly conformal dose distributions
→
improved target volume conformity
and OARs sparing
→
ability to produce inhomogeneous dose distributions
→
simultaneous
delivery of different doses per fraction to separate areas within the target
volume
•
VMAT vs fixed field IMRT
→
improved
delivery efficiency
→
reduction in MU and treatment delivery
time (almost universal finding in all planning studies)
→
inferior sparing of low dose levels
•
FFF vs FF
→
reduced treatment time
- highly significant for stereotactic treatments with high doses per fraction
- potential advantages for motion management techniques
→
comparable plan quality and accuracy