International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2008
Large cohort dose-volume response analysis of parotid gland function after radiotherapy: intensity-modulated versus conventional radiotherapy.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка 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.
Dijkema Tim, Terhaard Chris H J, Roesink Judith M, Braam Pètra M, van Gils Carla H, Moerland Marinus A, Raaijmakers Cornelis P J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare parotid gland dose-volume response relationships in a large cohort of patients treated with intensity-modulated (IMRT) and conventional radiotherapy (CRT).
METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 221 patients (64 treated with IMRT, 157 with CRT) with various head-and-neck malignancies were prospectively evaluated. The distribution of tumor subsites in both groups was unbalanced. Stimulated parotid flow rates were measured before and 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year after radiotherapy. Parotid gland dose-volume histograms were derived from computed tomography-based treatment planning. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model proposed by Lyman was fit to the data. A complication was defined as stimulated parotid flow ratio <25% of the pretreatment flow rate. The relative risk of complications was determined for IMRT vs. CRT and adjusted for the mean parotid gland dose using Poisson regression modeling.
RESULTS: One year after radiotherapy, NTCP curves for IMRT and CRT were comparable with a TD(50) (uniform dose leading to a 50% complication probability) of 38 and 40 Gy, respectively. Until 6 months after RT, corrected for mean dose, different complication probabilities existed for IMRT vs. CRT. The relative risk of a complication for IMRT vs. CRT after 6 weeks was 1.42 (95% CI 1.21-1.67), after 6 months 1.41 (95% CI; 1.12-1.77), and at 1 year 1.21 (95% CI 0.87-1.68), after correcting for mean dose.
CONCLUSIONS: One year after radiotherapy, no difference existed in the mean dose-based NTCP curves for IMRT and CRT. Early after radiotherapy (up to 6 months) mean dose based (Lyman) models failed to fully describe the effects of radiotherapy on the parotid glands.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 221 patients (64 treated with IMRT, 157 with CRT) with various head-and-neck malignancies were prospectively evaluated. The distribution of tumor subsites in both groups was unbalanced. Stimulated parotid flow rates were measured before and 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year after radiotherapy. Parotid gland dose-volume histograms were derived from computed tomography-based treatment planning. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model proposed by Lyman was fit to the data. A complication was defined as stimulated parotid flow ratio <25% of the pretreatment flow rate. The relative risk of complications was determined for IMRT vs. CRT and adjusted for the mean parotid gland dose using Poisson regression modeling.
RESULTS: One year after radiotherapy, NTCP curves for IMRT and CRT were comparable with a TD(50) (uniform dose leading to a 50% complication probability) of 38 and 40 Gy, respectively. Until 6 months after RT, corrected for mean dose, different complication probabilities existed for IMRT vs. CRT. The relative risk of a complication for IMRT vs. CRT after 6 weeks was 1.42 (95% CI 1.21-1.67), after 6 months 1.41 (95% CI; 1.12-1.77), and at 1 year 1.21 (95% CI 0.87-1.68), after correcting for mean dose.
CONCLUSIONS: One year after radiotherapy, no difference existed in the mean dose-based NTCP curves for IMRT and CRT. Early after radiotherapy (up to 6 months) mean dose based (Lyman) models failed to fully describe the effects of radiotherapy on the parotid glands.