RapidArc® vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A comparative planning study

J. M. Park, Kyubo Kim, E. K. Chie, C. H. Choi, S. J. Ye, S. W. Ha

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

34 Scopus citations


Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the dose-volumetric results of RapidArc® (RA Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) with those of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods: 20 patients previously treated for hepatocellular carcinoma were the subjects of this planning study. 10 patients were treated for portal vein tumour thrombosis (Group A), and 10 patients for primary liver tumour (Group B). Prescription dose to the planning target volume was 54 Gy in 30 fractions, and the planning goal was to deliver more than 95% of prescribed dose to at least 95% of planning target volume. Results: In Group A, mean doses to liver were increased with RA vs IMRT (22.9 Gy vs 22.2 Gy, p=0.0275). However, V 30 Gy of liver was lower in RA vs IMRT (31.1% vs 32.1%, p=0.0283). In Group B, in contrast, neither mean doses nor V 30 Gy of liver significantly differed between the two plans. V 35 Gy of duodenum and V 20 Gy of kidney were decreased with RA in Groups A and B, respectively (p=0.0058 and 0.0124, respectively). Both maximal doses to spinal cord and monitor unit were significantly lower in the RA plan, regardless of the group. Conclusion: The dose-volumetric results of RA vs IMRT were different according to the different target location within the liver. In general, RA tended to be more effective in the sparing of non-liver organs at risk such as duodenum, kidney, and/or spinal cord. Moreover, RA was more efficient in the treatment delivery than IMRT in terms of total monitor unit used.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e323-e329
JournalBritish Journal of Radiology
Issue number1015
StatePublished - Jul 2012


Dive into the research topics of 'RapidArc® vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A comparative planning study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this