Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2019
Optimizing laryngeal sparing with intensity modulated radiotherapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy for unilateral tonsil cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Moreno Amy C, Wilke Christopher, Wang He, Tung Shi-Ming Samuel, Pollard Courtney, Garden Adam S, Morrison William H, Rosenthal David I, Fuller Clifton D, Gunn Gary B, Reddy Jay P, Shah Shalin J, Frank Steven J, Takiar Vinita, Phan Jack
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Minimizing radiation dose exposure to nearby organs is key to limiting clinical toxicities associated with radiotherapy. Several treatment modalities such as split- or whole-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SF-IMRT, WF-IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) are being used to treat tonsillar cancer patients with unilateral neck radiotherapy. Herein, we provide a modern dosimetric comparison of all three techniques.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with tonsillar cancer treated with definitive, ipsilateral neck SF-IMRT were evaluated. Each patient was re-planned with WF-IMRT and VMAT techniques, and doses to selected organs-at-risk (OARs) including the larynx, esophagus, and brainstem were compared.
RESULTS: No significant differences in target coverage existed between plans; however, the heterogeneity index improved using WF-IMRT and VMAT relative to SF-IMRT. Compared to SF-IMRT, WF-IMRT and VMAT plans had significantly lower mean doses to the supraglottic larynx (31 Gy, 18.5 Gy, 17 Gy; p < 0.01), the MDACC-defined larynx (13.4 Gy, 10.5 Gy, 9.8 Gy; p < 0.01), and RTOG-defined larynx (15.8 Gy, 12.1 Gy, 11.1 Gy; p < 0.01), respectively. Mean esophageal dose was lowest with SF-IMRT over WF-IMRT and VMAT (5.9 Gy, 12.2 Gy, 11.1 Gy; p < 0.01) but only in the absence of lower neck disease. On average, VMAT plans had shorter treatment times and required less monitor units than both SF-IMRT and WF-IMRT.
CONCLUSION: In the setting of unilateral neck radiotherapy, WF-IMRT and VMAT plans can be optimized to significantly improve dose sparing of critical structures compared to SF-IMRT. VMAT offers additional advantages of shorter treatment times and fewer required monitor units.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with tonsillar cancer treated with definitive, ipsilateral neck SF-IMRT were evaluated. Each patient was re-planned with WF-IMRT and VMAT techniques, and doses to selected organs-at-risk (OARs) including the larynx, esophagus, and brainstem were compared.
RESULTS: No significant differences in target coverage existed between plans; however, the heterogeneity index improved using WF-IMRT and VMAT relative to SF-IMRT. Compared to SF-IMRT, WF-IMRT and VMAT plans had significantly lower mean doses to the supraglottic larynx (31 Gy, 18.5 Gy, 17 Gy; p < 0.01), the MDACC-defined larynx (13.4 Gy, 10.5 Gy, 9.8 Gy; p < 0.01), and RTOG-defined larynx (15.8 Gy, 12.1 Gy, 11.1 Gy; p < 0.01), respectively. Mean esophageal dose was lowest with SF-IMRT over WF-IMRT and VMAT (5.9 Gy, 12.2 Gy, 11.1 Gy; p < 0.01) but only in the absence of lower neck disease. On average, VMAT plans had shorter treatment times and required less monitor units than both SF-IMRT and WF-IMRT.
CONCLUSION: In the setting of unilateral neck radiotherapy, WF-IMRT and VMAT plans can be optimized to significantly improve dose sparing of critical structures compared to SF-IMRT. VMAT offers additional advantages of shorter treatment times and fewer required monitor units.