Field-in-field technique for upper abdominal malignancies in clinical radiotherapy

Prabhakar, R; Haresh, K.P.; Kumar, M. Dinesh; Sharma, Dheeraj; Pk, Julka; Rath, GK

doi:10.4103/0973-1482.48765

Cited by 12 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…9,10,12 In recent years, there has been rapid improvement in the software and hardware of linear accelerators. 21 The MLC is used instead of wedges for treatment techniques.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It reduces the effect of low energy x-rays in the megavoltage beams and causes a beam hardening effect which can alter the depth dose at larger depths. 9,10 A great progress in 3D-CRT has been achieved with the introduction of multileaf collimators (MLCs). [9][10][11] The field-in-field (FIF) technique is a radiotherapy technique, and is also known as forward intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).…”

Section: International Journal Of Hematology and Oncologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9,10 A great progress in 3D-CRT has been achieved with the introduction of multileaf collimators (MLCs). [9][10][11] The field-in-field (FIF) technique is a radiotherapy technique, and is also known as forward intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The aim of the forward IMRT is to increase dose homogeneity in the target volume while decreasing the absorbed dose in the irradiated tissues outside the targeted tissue.…”

Section: International Journal Of Hematology and Oncologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…28 The doses received by organs at risk in the present study were significantly reduced with the FIF technique. Prabhakar et al 9,10 showed that the FIF technique caused less maximum dose to organ at risks when compared with the 3D-CRT method. Also, other studies in other regions showed this reduction in dose to OARs, and it was in agreement with the present study.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Field-in-Field Technique Improves the Dosimetric Outcome of Treatment Plans Compared with the Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy for Esophageal Cancer Radiotherapy

Jabbari¹

2018

UHOD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the dosimetric parameters of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and field-in-field (FIF) techniques for patients with esophageal cancer. Twenty (20) patients with esophageal cancer participated in this study. Two planning techniques (FIF and 3D-CRT) were generated for each patient by the TiGRT treatment planning system. Two indices namely: Dose Homogeneity Index (DHI) and Conformity index (CI), as well as maximum dose, mean dose, minimum dose, dose received by 2% of the target volume (D 2 ); dose received by 98% of the target volume (D 98 ); volume received greater than 107% of the prescribed dose (V> 107%); volume received less than 95% of the prescribed dose (V< 95%); Dose received by organ at risks (OARs) and total Monitor Unit (MUs) were used for the comparison. The mean values were then compared using paired sample t-test. The FIF technique reduced the maximum dose and mean dose in the planning target volume (PTV). The FIF technique had higher D98, lower D 2 and V< 95%. The FIF plan recorded a better DHI than the 3D-CRT technique. However, the FIF did not show any significant differences in minimum dose, V>107%, CI and MUs compared with the 3D-CRT technique. In addition, the FIF technique demonstrated reduced dose received by the OARs in the treated region. The FIF technique enables better dose distribution in the PTV and reduces dose to OARs in esophageal radiotherapy.

show abstract

“…9,10,12 In recent years, there has been rapid improvement in the software and hardware of linear accelerators. 21 The MLC is used instead of wedges for treatment techniques.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: International Journal Of Hematology and Oncologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: International Journal Of Hematology and Oncologymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Field-in-Field Technique Improves the Dosimetric Outcome of Treatment Plans Compared with the Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy for Esophageal Cancer Radiotherapy

Jabbari¹

2018

UHOD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To improve dose distribution, the FIF technique has been used in the treatment of certain cancers. It is a manually based forward intensity-modulated radiotherapy (forward-IMRT) plan for which the calculated dose is adjusted in certain dose distribution areas by designing multiple lower-weighted reduction fields based on the main field [3]- [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study between Field-in-Field and IMRT Techniques in Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy: A Treatment Planning Study

Dawod

Hammoury²

2016

IJMPCERO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Field-in-Field (FIF) and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) are two advanced radiation therapy planning techniques. Both of them are being used to achieve the same two related aims which are, to expose the targeted tumor to the full radiation dose and to spare the nearby normal tissues (or organs) from being exposed to high amounts of radiation more than its tolerance dose limits. FIF is a forward planning while IMRT is an inverse planning and FIF is a forward IMRT. Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare between Field-in-Field and IMRT techniques in prostate cancer radiotherapy. Method: A treatment planning system supporting both inverse and forward planning facilities is used. Ten prostate cancer patients were planned with both FIF and IMRT planning techniques. Doses received by the Planning Target Volume (PTV) and Organs at Risk (OARs) were compared in the two methods quantitatively from Dose Volume Histograms (DVHs) and qualitatively from (axial cuts). Results: The results showed that the IMRT planning technique achieved better dose coverage to the PTV than the FIF planning technique but, except RT and LT Femoral Heads, FIF achieved a better protection to the Rectum and the Bladder (OARs) than IMRT. Conclusions: The results showed that the inverse planning based IMRT technique is better and recommended in the prostate cancer radiotherapy than the FIF technique.

show abstract

Automation of radiation treatment planning for rectal cancer

Huang

Das

Olanrewaju

et al. 2022

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To develop an automated workflow for rectal cancer threedimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) treatment planning that combines deep learning (DL) aperture predictions and forward-planning algorithms. Methods: We designed an algorithm to automate the clinical workflow for 3DCRT planning with field aperture creations and field-in-field (FIF) planning. DL models (DeepLabV3+ architecture) were trained, validated, and tested on 555 patients to automatically generate aperture shapes for primary (posterioranterior [PA] and opposed laterals) and boost fields. Network inputs were digitally reconstructed radiographs, gross tumor volume (GTV), and nodal GTV. A physician scored each aperture for 20 patients on a 5-point scale (>3 is acceptable).A planning algorithm was then developed to create a homogeneous dose using a combination of wedges and subfields. The algorithm iteratively identifies a hotspot volume, creates a subfield, calculates dose, and optimizes beam weight all without user intervention. The algorithm was tested on 20 patients using clinical apertures with varying wedge angles and definitions of hotspots, and the resulting plans were scored by a physician. The end-to-end workflow was tested and scored by a physician on another 39 patients. Results: The predicted apertures had Dice scores of 0.95, 0.94, and 0.90 for PA, laterals, and boost fields, respectively. Overall, 100%, 95%, and 87.5% of the PA, laterals, and boost apertures were scored as clinically acceptable, respectively. At least one auto-plan was clinically acceptable for all patients. Wedged and non-wedged plans were clinically acceptable for 85% and 50% of patients, respectively. The hotspot dose percentage was reduced from 121% (σ = 14%) to 109% (σ = 5%) of prescription dose for all plans. The integrated end-to-end workflow of automatically generated apertures and optimized FIF planning gave clinically acceptable plans for 38/39 (97%) of patients. Conclusion:We have successfully automated the clinical workflow for generating radiotherapy plans for rectal cancer for our institution.

show abstract

Field-in-field technique for upper abdominal malignancies in clinical radiotherapy

Abstract: The FIF technique can be employed for UAM in place of wedge-based conformal treatment plans.

Cited by 12 publications

References 6 publications

Field-in-Field Technique Improves the Dosimetric Outcome of Treatment Plans Compared with the Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy for Esophageal Cancer Radiotherapy

Field-in-Field Technique Improves the Dosimetric Outcome of Treatment Plans Compared with the Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy for Esophageal Cancer Radiotherapy

Comparative Study between Field-in-Field and IMRT Techniques in Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy: A Treatment Planning Study

Automation of radiation treatment planning for rectal cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About