Vol 25, No 4 (2020)
Original research articles
Published online: 2020-07-01

open access

Page views 301
Article views/downloads 472
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Dosimetric comparison of dynamic conformal arc integrated with segment shape optimization and variable dose rate versus volumetric modulated arc therapy for liver SBRT

Deepak Thaper12, Rose Kamal12, Gaganpreet Singh13, Arun S. Oinam3, Hanuman P. Yadav2, Rishabh Kumar2, Vivek Kumar1
DOI: 10.1016/j.rpor.2020.04.017
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2020;25(4):667-677.



The aim is a dosimetric comparison of dynamic conformal arc integrated with the segment shape optimization and variable dose rate (DCA_SSO_VDR) versus VMAT for liver SBRT and interaction of various treatment plan quality indices with PTV and degree of modulation (DoM) for both techniques.


The DCA is the state-of-the-art technique but overall inferior to VMAT, and the DCA_SSO_VDR technique was not studied for liver SBRT.

Materials and methods

Twenty-five patients of liver SBRT treated using the VMAT technique were selected. DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans were also generated for all patients in Monaco TPS using the same objective constraint template and treatment planning parameters as used for the VMAT technique. For comparison purpose, organs at risk (OARs) doses and treatment plans quality indices, such as maximum dose of PTV (Dmax%), mean dose of PTV (Dmean%), maximum dose at 2 cm in any direction from the PTV (D2cm%), total monitor units (MU’s), gradient index R50%, degree of modulation (DoM), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and healthy tissue mean dose (HTMD) were compared.


Significant dosimetric differences were observed in several OARs doses and lowered in VMAT plans. The D2cm%, R50%, CI, HI and HTMD are dosimetrically inferior in DCA_SSO_VDR plans. The higher DoM results in poor dose gradient and better dose gradient for DCA_SSO_VDR and VMAT treatment plans, respectively.


For liver SBRT, DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans are neither dosimetrically superior nor better alternative to the VMAT delivery technique. A reduction of 69.75% MU was observed in DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans. For the large size of PTV and high DoM, DCA_SSO_VDR treatment plans result in poorer quality.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy