Dosimetric difference amongst 3 techniques: TomoTherapy, sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and RapidArc radiotherapy in the treatment of late-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC)

Lee, Francis Kar ho; Yip, Celia Wai yi; Cheung, Frankie Chun hung; Leung, Alexander Moon Ho; Chau, R.M.W.; Ngan, Roger K.C.

doi:10.1016/j.meddos.2013.09.004

Cited by 38 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…24 Optimization of radiation treatment planning can help reduce mucositis and nausea by minimizing the dose to the mucosal surface and brainstem. 22, 25 As observed in our study, there is a trend toward enlarged setup errors with increasing number of fractions. The use of a shorter radiation treatment course with altered fractionation scheme may also help reduce setup errors.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

The ratio of weight loss to planning target volume significantly impacts setup errors in nasopharyngeal cancer patients undergoing helical tomotherapy with daily megavoltage computed tomography

Hou

Wang

Tsai

et al. 2016

Radiology and Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundChanges in head and neck anatomy during radiation therapy (RT) produce setup uncertainties of nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) irradiation. We retrospectively analyzed image guidance data to identify clinical predictors of setup errors.Patients and methodsThe data of 217 NPC patients undergoing definitive RT on a helical tomotherapy (HT) unit were analyzed. Factors including tumor stage, body mass index, weight loss, and planning target volume (PTV) were assessed as predictors of daily megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) setup displacements, which were automatically registered using software.ResultsMean daily setup displacements (in mm) were 1.2 ± 0.6, 1.8 ± 0.8, 3.4 ± 1.4 in the medial-lateral (ML), superior-inferior (SI), and anterior-posterior (AP) directions, respectively. Mean weight loss was 4.6 ± 3.3 kg (6.8 ± 4.9%). Patients with weight loss > 5% had significantly larger setup displacements in the AP (3.6 ± 1.5 vs. 2.9 ± 1.1 mm, p < 0.001) and SI (1.6 ± 0.7 vs. 1.9 ± 0.9 mm, p = 0.01) direction, but not in the ML direction (p = 0.279). The AP setup error increased 0.06 mm (y = 0.055x + 2.927, x: percentage of weight loss/PTV, y: AP displacement) per one percent increase in weight loss normalized to PTV.ConclusionsPatients with weight loss > 5% and smaller PTVs, possibly because of small body frame or neck girth, were more likely to have increased setup errors in the AP direction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

The ratio of weight loss to planning target volume significantly impacts setup errors in nasopharyngeal cancer patients undergoing helical tomotherapy with daily megavoltage computed tomography

Hou

Wang

Tsai

et al. 2016

Radiology and Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…FF-IMRT and VAMT contribute greatly in radiotherapy, followed by HT, a neo-CT based rotational IMRT, which provides better OARs sparing with 51 independent beam directions, delivers a highly conformal dose distribution. Nowadays, HT is frequently used for a variety of diseases [12][13][14][15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosimetric comparison between helical tomotherapy, volume modulated arc-therapy and Fixed-Field intensity modulated radiation therapy in postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy for cervical cancer

Wang

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To evaluate the dosimetric parameters among three different radiotherapy techniques in patients with postoperative cervical cancer, including the Helical Tomotherapy (HT), the Volume Modulated Arc-Therapy (VMAT), and the Fixed-Field intensity modulated radiation therapy (FF-IMRT). Methods: Fifteen cervical cancer patients treated with postoperative radiotherapy were re-planning with HT, VMAT and FF-IMRT. The prescribed target dose of the patients was 1.8/45Gy. The paired-samples t-test was used to compare the dosimetric parameters of the planning target and OARs (Organs at risk), and the efficiency of radiation delivery. Results: Compared with the VMAT and FF-IMRT, the HT plans showed significant improvement in the conformity index (CI) and the homogeneity index (HI). In addition, the HT plans also significantly reduced the volume of high-dose region of the OARS, especially in the V30, V40 of small bowel, rectum and bladder. Meantime, the advantage of VMAT is that it reduced the treatment time and improved the efficiency of radiation delivery obviously, compared with the HT (293.8 ± 12.8s Vs. 557.6 ± 51.9s, P < 0.001) and FF-IMRT (293.8 ± 12.8s Vs. 581.8 ± 26.1s, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Our result reveals that HT showed better CI and HI for the target and reduced high dose volumes to OARs compared with VMAT and FF-IMRT, but the lower dose volumes to OARs increased slightly. As for the benefit of VMAT, it demonstrated the shortest treatment time. Our results could provide guidance for selecting the appropriate radiation technologies for cervical cancer patients who undergoing postoperative adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy.

show abstract

“…It has been indicated that given the same target dose coverage, VMAT is able to treat NPC more efficiently with less damage to OARs. 11,24 Ning et al 13 compared VMAT with IMRT for NPC treatment. They found that VMAT offered better protection to the OARs, particularly the temporal lobe, brain stem and parotid glands than IMRT.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compared with standard IMRT, VMAT can provide more precise conformal dose distribution through modulated gantry rotation speed, dose rate (DR) and multileaf collimator (MLC) pattern in linear accelerator. 10,11 Some studies have demonstrated that VMAT provide superior OARs/target coverage and fewer monitor units (MUs) per fraction over conventional IMRT for NPC. 12,13 However, few publications focused on the protection of hearing apparatus have been reported to compare between the two techniques.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

SmartArc-based volumetric modulated arc therapy can improve the middle ear, vestibule and cochlea sparing for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a dosimetric comparison with step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy

Tl¹,

Cz²,

Yh³

et al. 2015

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Dosimetric difference amongst 3 techniques: TomoTherapy, sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and RapidArc radiotherapy in the treatment of late-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC)

Cited by 38 publications

References 19 publications

The ratio of weight loss to planning target volume significantly impacts setup errors in nasopharyngeal cancer patients undergoing helical tomotherapy with daily megavoltage computed tomography

The ratio of weight loss to planning target volume significantly impacts setup errors in nasopharyngeal cancer patients undergoing helical tomotherapy with daily megavoltage computed tomography

Dosimetric comparison between helical tomotherapy, volume modulated arc-therapy and Fixed-Field intensity modulated radiation therapy in postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy for cervical cancer

SmartArc-based volumetric modulated arc therapy can improve the middle ear, vestibule and cochlea sparing for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a dosimetric comparison with step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About