Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment (Jun 2023)

Feasibility and Toxicity of Full-Body Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Technique for High-Dose Total Body Irradiation

  • Emily Keit MD,
  • Casey Liveringhouse MD,
  • Nicholas Figura MD,
  • Joseph Weygand PhD,
  • Maria L. Sandoval MD,
  • Genevieve Garcia CMD,
  • Julia Peters CMD,
  • Michael Nieder MD,
  • Rawan Faramand MD,
  • Farhad Khimani MD,
  • Sungjune Kim MD, PhD,
  • Timothy J. Robinson MD, PhD,
  • Peter A.S. Johnstone MD,
  • Jose Penagaricano MD,
  • Kujtim Latifi PhD

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/15330338231180779
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 22

Abstract

Read online

Introduction: High-dose total body irradiation (TBI) is often part of myeloablative conditioning in acute leukemia. Modern volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-based plans employ arcs to the inferior-most portion of the body that can be simulated in a head-first position and use 2D planning for the inferior body which can result in heterogeneous doses. Here, we describe our institution's unique protocol for delivering high-dose TBI entirely with VMAT and retrospectively compare dosimetric outcomes with helical tomotherapy (HT) plans. Additionally, we describe our method of oropharyngeal mucosal sparing that was implemented after fatal mucositis occurred in two patients. Methods: Thirty-one patients were simulated and treated in head-first (HFS) and feet-first (FFS) orientations. Patients were treated with VMAT (n = 26) or HT (n = 5). In VMAT plans, to synchronize doses between the orientations, images were deformably registered and the HFS dose was transferred to the FFS plan and used as a background dose when optimizing plans. Six to eight isocenters with two arcs per isocenter were generated. HT was delivered with an established technique. Patients were treated to 13.2 Gy over eight twice daily fractions. Dosimetric outcomes and toxicities were retrospectively compared. Results: Prescription dose and organ at risk (OAR) constraints were met for all patients. Lower lung doses were achieved with VMAT relative to HT plans (7.4 vs 7.7 Gy, P = .009). Statistically significant improvement in mucositis was not achieved after adopting a mucosal-sparing technique, however lower doses to the oropharyngeal mucosal were achieved (6.9 vs 14.1 Gy, P = .009), and no further mucositis-related deaths occurred. Conclusions: This full-body VMAT method of TBI achieves dose goals, eliminates risk of heterogenous doses within the femur, and demonstrates that selective OAR sparing with the purpose of reducing TBI-related morbidity and mortality is possible at any institution with a VMAT-capable linear accelerator.