International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2010
Comparative analysis of an image-guided versus a non-image-guided setup approach in terms of delivered dose to the parotid glands in head-and-neck cancer IMRT.
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.
Duma Marciana Nona, Kampfer Severin, Wilkens Jan Jakob, Schuster Tibor, Molls Michael, Geinitz Hans
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess the impact of interfractional variations of shape and setup uncertainties on the dose to the parotid glands (PGs) in head-and-neck cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT).
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two scenarios were analyzed retrospectively for 10 head-and-neck cancer patients, treated with helical TomoTherapy (TomoTherapy Inc., Madison, WI): the IGRT scenario and the non-IGRT scenario. The initial dose-volume histograms derived from the planning computed tomography (PCT) scan and 120 recalculated dose-volume histograms of the PGs of each scenario and of corresponding fractions were compared. Setup errors, cumulative median doses (CMDs) for 6 fractions, overall volumes of the PGs, and volumes that received less than 1 Gy or more than 1.6 Gy per fraction were analyzed.
RESULTS: The mean decrease in the PG volume was 0.13 cm(3)/d. There was a significantly higher CMD than initially predicted (mean increase for 6 fractions, 1.13 Gy for IGRT and 0.96 Gy for non-IGRT). The volume that received less than 1 Gy per fraction decreased (mean difference to PCT, 1.36 cm(3) for IGRT [p = 0.003] and 1.35 cm(3) for non-IGRT [p = 0.003]) and the volume that received more than 1.6 Gy per fraction increased with increasing fraction number (mean difference to PCT, 1.14 cm(3) for IGRT [p = 0.01] and 1.16 cm(3) for non-IGRT [p = 0.006]). There was no statistically significant difference between the two scenarios (CMD, p = 0.095; volume that received <1 Gy per fraction, p = 0.896; and volume that received >1.6 Gy per fraction, p = 0.855).
CONCLUSIONS: In the analyzed group the actual delivered dose to the PGs does not differ significantly between an IGRT and a non-IGRT approach. However, IGRT in head-and-neck cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy is strongly recommended to improve patient setup.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two scenarios were analyzed retrospectively for 10 head-and-neck cancer patients, treated with helical TomoTherapy (TomoTherapy Inc., Madison, WI): the IGRT scenario and the non-IGRT scenario. The initial dose-volume histograms derived from the planning computed tomography (PCT) scan and 120 recalculated dose-volume histograms of the PGs of each scenario and of corresponding fractions were compared. Setup errors, cumulative median doses (CMDs) for 6 fractions, overall volumes of the PGs, and volumes that received less than 1 Gy or more than 1.6 Gy per fraction were analyzed.
RESULTS: The mean decrease in the PG volume was 0.13 cm(3)/d. There was a significantly higher CMD than initially predicted (mean increase for 6 fractions, 1.13 Gy for IGRT and 0.96 Gy for non-IGRT). The volume that received less than 1 Gy per fraction decreased (mean difference to PCT, 1.36 cm(3) for IGRT [p = 0.003] and 1.35 cm(3) for non-IGRT [p = 0.003]) and the volume that received more than 1.6 Gy per fraction increased with increasing fraction number (mean difference to PCT, 1.14 cm(3) for IGRT [p = 0.01] and 1.16 cm(3) for non-IGRT [p = 0.006]). There was no statistically significant difference between the two scenarios (CMD, p = 0.095; volume that received <1 Gy per fraction, p = 0.896; and volume that received >1.6 Gy per fraction, p = 0.855).
CONCLUSIONS: In the analyzed group the actual delivered dose to the PGs does not differ significantly between an IGRT and a non-IGRT approach. However, IGRT in head-and-neck cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy is strongly recommended to improve patient setup.