Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2014
Radiotherapy for unresectable sinonasal cancers: dosimetric comparison of intensity modulated radiation therapy with coplanar and non-coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Orlandi Ester, Giandini Tommaso, Iannacone Eva, De Ponti Elena, Carrara Mauro, Mongioj Valeria, Stucchi Claudio, Tana Silvia, Bossi Paolo, Licitra Lisa, Fallai Carlo, Pignoli Emanuele
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for treatment of unresectable paranasal sinuses cancers (PNSCs) with different clinical presentations.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four patients treated for primary target volume only (group 1), four requiring elective nodal irradiation (group 2) and four with positive nodes in macroscopic disease (group 3) were selected. For each patient were generated 7 fields IMRT, coplanar VMAT (c-VMAT) and non-coplanar VMAT (nc-VMAT) treatment plans. Total doses were 70Gy and 54Gy to high dose planning target volume (HD-PTV) and low-dose-PTV, respectively. Dose-volume histogram, conformity and homogeneity index (CI and HI), and monitor units (MUs) per Gy were evaluated.
RESULTS: VMAT provided significantly better target coverage, in terms of V100% (Volume encompassed by the isodose 100%), than IMRT, in particular when nc-VMAT was used. In general, organ at risk sparing is similar with the three approaches, although nc-VMAT can allow a statistically significant reduction of dose to contralateral parotid gland and cochlea for all three groups.
CONCLUSIONS: VMAT can offer significant improvement of treatment for all unresectable PNSCs over existing IMRT techniques. In particular, nc-VMAT may be a further advantage for those patients with sinonasal cancers and involvement of the nodes in whom large volumes and complex/irregular shape have to be irradiated, even if clinical benefits should be established in the future.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four patients treated for primary target volume only (group 1), four requiring elective nodal irradiation (group 2) and four with positive nodes in macroscopic disease (group 3) were selected. For each patient were generated 7 fields IMRT, coplanar VMAT (c-VMAT) and non-coplanar VMAT (nc-VMAT) treatment plans. Total doses were 70Gy and 54Gy to high dose planning target volume (HD-PTV) and low-dose-PTV, respectively. Dose-volume histogram, conformity and homogeneity index (CI and HI), and monitor units (MUs) per Gy were evaluated.
RESULTS: VMAT provided significantly better target coverage, in terms of V100% (Volume encompassed by the isodose 100%), than IMRT, in particular when nc-VMAT was used. In general, organ at risk sparing is similar with the three approaches, although nc-VMAT can allow a statistically significant reduction of dose to contralateral parotid gland and cochlea for all three groups.
CONCLUSIONS: VMAT can offer significant improvement of treatment for all unresectable PNSCs over existing IMRT techniques. In particular, nc-VMAT may be a further advantage for those patients with sinonasal cancers and involvement of the nodes in whom large volumes and complex/irregular shape have to be irradiated, even if clinical benefits should be established in the future.