Dosimetric and clinical outcomes after volumetric modulated arc therapy for carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus

Purpose: The efficiency of radiation delivery via volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is indisputable, but outcomes after VMAT for thoracic esophageal carcinoma are largely unknown. Methods and materials: We retrospectively analyzed 65 patients with thoracic esophageal cancer who received VMAT to 50.4 Gy (range, 45-50.4 Gy) with concurrent chemotherapy from November 2012 to March 2016 at a single tertiary cancer center. We then used propensity score matching to match these 65 patients with 130 other patients treated with step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy (ssIMRT) and concurrent chemotherapy. Differences in continuous and categorical variables were examined with independent-sample t or Wilcoxon tests and χ2 tests. Results: Dosimetrically, VMAT had a higher conformity index (87.75 ± 10.70 VMAT vs 83.20 ± 9.42 ssIMRT, P = .003), a higher heart V5, and a lower V50 than ssIMRT, but lung V5-20, heart V30, heart V40, cordmax, and homogeneity index were similar. At median follow-up intervals of 14.3 months (range, 3.8-34.5 months) for VMAT and 31.8 months (range, 1.8-117.2 months) for ssIMRT, overall survival rates were similar between the treatments (93.5% VMAT vs 91.5% ssIMRT at 1 year; 60.0% VMAT and 61.4% ssIMRT at 2 years; P = .868). Recurrence-free survival rates were similar (73.3% VMAT vs 79.5% ssIMRT at 1 year, 59.9% VMAT and 61.8% ssIMRT at 2 years; P = .614), as were pathologic complete response rates (31.2% VMAT vs 23.3% ssIMRT; P = .41) and toxicity and postoperative complications (radiation pneumonitis 9% VMAT vs 15.4% ssIMRT; pericardial effusion 2% VMAT vs 7% ssIMRT; esophageal fistula and stricture 9% VMAT vs 13% ssIMRT; all P > .05). Conclusion: Compared with ssIMRT, VMAT had better target conformity with similar organ sparing and comparable rates of survival, recurrence, and toxicity. These results suggest that VMAT can be safe and effective for esophageal cancer.