Share This Article:

Dosimetric Study of Coplanar and Non-Coplanar Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Planning for Esophageal Carcinoma

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:351KB) PP. 133-138
DOI: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2013.24018    3,754 Downloads   6,414 Views  

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To compare the dosimetric impact of coplanar intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and non-coplanar IMRT for the esophageal carcinoma. Methods: There are forty-five esophageal carcinoma patients, fifteen of whom were cervical and upper thoracic (Group 1) and thirty were middle and lower thoracic (Group 2). Gross tumor volume (GTV), clinical target volume (CTV), and organs at risk (OAR) were contoured by the chief physician in the CMS-XiO treatment planning system. For each patient, one coplanar plan and two non-coplanar plans have been created using the same physical objective function. A detailed dose-volume histogram (DVH) comparison among three plans was then carried out in a tabulated format. Results: 1) In Group 1 patients with PTV volume less than 100cc, the mean dose and dose gradient of non-coplanar plan were much better than those in coplanar plan. 2) In Group 2 patients, the conformity index (CI) for coplanar and two non-coplanar plans were 0.69 ± 0.13, 0.41 ± 0.13, and 0.68 ± 0.15, respectively. The V5, V10, V20, and the mean dose to the lung were lower in the non-coplanar plans compared to ones in coplanar plan. However, the non-coplanar plans resulted in an increase in a dose to the heart, but the dose was still within heart toxicity tolerance. Conclusion: For Group 1 patients, the non-coplanar IMRT plan had less dose gradient and better mean dose than the coplanar IMRT plan. For Group 2 patients, the non-coplanar IMRT could the decrease dose to the lung tissue, thus lowering the probability of radiation pneumonia to esophageal cancer patients. The drawback of non-coplanar IMRT is that, even within toxicity tolerance, it could deliver a higher dose to the heart and spinal cord compared to the coplanar plan. Therefore, for patients with cardiology and neurology concern, non-coplanar IMRT should be used with caution.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Y. Li, B. Liu, F. Zhai, Y. Yang, M. Liu, C. Bao and Q. Zhou, "Dosimetric Study of Coplanar and Non-Coplanar Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Planning for Esophageal Carcinoma," International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, Vol. 2 No. 4, 2013, pp. 133-138. doi: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2013.24018.

References

[1] Q. Wu, M. Manning, R. Schmidt-Ullrich, et al., “The Potential for Sparing of Parotids and Escalation of Biologically Effective Dose with Intensity-Modulated Radiation Treatments of Head and Neck Cancers: A Treatment Design Study,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2000, pp. 195-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00304-1
[2] V. W. Wu, D. L. Kwong and J. S. Sham, “Target Dose Conformity in 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy and Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy,” Radiotherapy & Oncology, Vol. 71, No. 2, 2004, pp. 201-206.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2004.03.004
[3] C. Y. Hsiung, E. D. Yorke, C. S. Chui, et al., “Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy versus Conventional Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy for Boost or Salvage Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, Vol. 53, No. 3, 2002, pp. 638-647.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02760-8
[4] L. Wang, C. Han, X. Zhang, et al., “Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer,” Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 35, No. 8, 2008, pp. 424-427.
[5] A. Pugachev, J. G. Li, A. L. Boyer, S. L. Hancock, et al., “Role of Beam Orientation Optimization in Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, Vol. 50, No. 2, 2001, pp. 551-560.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01502-4
[6] E. Schreibmann, et al., “Feasibility Study of Beam Orientation Class Solutions for Prostate IMRT,” Medical Physics, Vol. 31, No. 10, 2004, pp. 2863-2870.http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1797571
[7] Y. Li, J. Yao and D. Yao, “Automatic Beam Angle Selection in IMRT Planning Using Geneticalgorithm,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 49, No. 10, 2004, pp. 1915-1932.http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/49/10/007
[8] E. K. Lee, T. Fox, I. Crocker, et al., “Simultaneous Beam Geometry and Intensity Map Optimization in Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, Vol. 64, No. 1, 2006, pp. 301-320.
[9] J. Meyer, J. A. Mills and O. C. Haas, “Accommodation of Couch Constraits for Coplanar Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy,” Radiotherapy & Oncology, Vol. 61, No. 1, 2001, pp. 23-32.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(01)00393-0
[10] P. Andrei, G. L. Jonathan, L. Arthur, et al., “Role of Non-Coplanar Beams in IMRT,” Proceedings of the 22nd Annual EMBS International Conference, 23-28 July 2000, pp. 456-459.
[11] J. L. Bedford, A. J. Henrys, D. P. Dearnaley, et al., “Treatment Planning Evaluation of Non-Coplanar Techniques for Conformal Radiotherapy of the Prodtate,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, Vol. 75, No. 3, 2005, pp. 287-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2005.03.023
[12] C. T. Olivier, K. Mustapha, J. Patrice, et al., “Potential Benefits of Using Non-Coplanar Field and Intensity-Moduhad Radiation Therapy to Preserve the Heart in Irradiation of Lung Tumors in the Middle and Lower Lobes,” Radiotherapy & Oncology, Vol. 80, No. 3, 2006, pp. 333-340.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2006.07.009
[13] H. Liu, J.-K. Li, X.-P. Wang, et al., “Dosimetry Study on Non-Coplanar Beam in 3D-CRT for Thoracic Esophagectomy,” Chinese Journal of Cancer Prevention and Treatment, Vol. 18, No. 13, 2011, pp. 1036-1038, 1053.
[14] M. V. Graham, J. A. Purdy, B. Emami, et al., “Clinical Dose-Volume Histogram Ananlysis for Pnumonifis after 3D Treatment for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLc),” International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology* Physics, Vol. 45, No. 2, 1999, pp. 323-329.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00183-2
[15] A. M. Allen, M. Czerminska, P. A. Janne, et al., “Fatal Pneumonitis Associated with Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Mesothelioma,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, Vol. 65, No. 3, 2006, pp. 640-645.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.03.012
[16] L. Tucker, H. Liu and S. Wang, “Dose-Volume Modeling of the Risk of Postoperative Pulmonary Complications among Esophageal Cancer Patients Treated with Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Surgery,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, Vol. 66, No. 3, 2006, pp. 754-761.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.06.002
[17] S. Darbys, P. McGale, R. Peto, et al., “Mortality from cardiovascular Disease More than 10 Years after Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer Nation Wide Cohort Study of 90000 Swedish Women,” BMJ, Vol. 326, No. 7383, 2003, pp. 256-257.
[18] X. Wei, H. H. Liu, S. L. Tucker, et al., “Risk Factors for Perianrdial Effusion in Inoperable Esophageal Cancer Patients Treated with Definitive Chemoradiation Therapy,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology* Physics, Vol. 70, No. 3, 2008, pp. 707-714.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.10.056
[19] S. Rana, K. Rogers, S. Pokharel, et al., “Acuros XB Algorithm vs. Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm: A Dosimetric Study Using Heterogeneous Phantom and Computed Tomography (CT) Data Sets of esophageal Cancer Patients,” Journal of Cancer Therapy, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2013, pp. 138-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jct.2013.41019
[20] S. Rana and K. Rogers, “Radiobiological Evaluation of Dose Calculation Algorithms in RapidArc Planning of Esophageal Cancer Treatment Plans,” Journal of Solid Tumors, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2013, pp. 44-52.http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/jst.v3n3p44

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.