Cargando…

Static versus dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy: Profile of integral dose in carcinoma of the nasopharynx

This study is aimed to evaluate the impact of static and dynamic intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivery techniques planned with Eclipse TPS on the integral dose to the healthy normal tissue surrounding the tumor-bearing area and to the volume receiving doses < 5 Gy in patients with carc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jothybasu, K. S., Bahl, Amit, Subramani, V., Rath, G. K., Sharma, D. N., Julka, P. K.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2805892/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20098539
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0971-6203.51932
_version_ 1782176239780364288
author Jothybasu, K. S.
Bahl, Amit
Subramani, V.
Rath, G. K.
Sharma, D. N.
Julka, P. K.
author_facet Jothybasu, K. S.
Bahl, Amit
Subramani, V.
Rath, G. K.
Sharma, D. N.
Julka, P. K.
author_sort Jothybasu, K. S.
collection PubMed
description This study is aimed to evaluate the impact of static and dynamic intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivery techniques planned with Eclipse TPS on the integral dose to the healthy normal tissue surrounding the tumor-bearing area and to the volume receiving doses < 5 Gy in patients with carcinoma nasopharynx treated with Simultaneous Integrated Boost IMRT (SIB-IMRT). Ten patients with carcinoma nasopharynx were chosen for this dosimetric study. IMRT plans were generated with 6X using dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) and static multileaf collimator (SMLC) with 5, 10 and 15 intensity levels (L). Integral dose, volume receiving 5 Gy, number of monitor units (MU) is compared against DMLC. The mean difference in the MU delivered per fraction between 5, 10 and 15 L SMLC and DMLC was −13.25% (P < 0.001, with paired t test), −11.82% (P < 0.001) and −10.81% (P < 0.001), respectively. The mean difference in the integral dose with 5, 10 and 15 L compared to DMLC was −2.96% (P < 0.001), −2.67% (P = 0.016) and −0.39% (P = 0.430), respectively. However, the difference in low-dose volume (V5Gy) was statistically insignificant with mean difference of 0.60% (P = 0.23), 1.18% (P = 0.017) and 1.70% (P = 0.078), respectively for 5, 10 and 15 L compared to DMLC. Our results show that while choosing the IMRT delivery technique using conventional MLC the concerns about integral dose and volume receiving very low doses such as 5 Gy can be ignored.
format Text
id pubmed-2805892
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Medknow Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28058922010-01-22 Static versus dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy: Profile of integral dose in carcinoma of the nasopharynx Jothybasu, K. S. Bahl, Amit Subramani, V. Rath, G. K. Sharma, D. N. Julka, P. K. J Med Phys Original Article This study is aimed to evaluate the impact of static and dynamic intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivery techniques planned with Eclipse TPS on the integral dose to the healthy normal tissue surrounding the tumor-bearing area and to the volume receiving doses < 5 Gy in patients with carcinoma nasopharynx treated with Simultaneous Integrated Boost IMRT (SIB-IMRT). Ten patients with carcinoma nasopharynx were chosen for this dosimetric study. IMRT plans were generated with 6X using dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) and static multileaf collimator (SMLC) with 5, 10 and 15 intensity levels (L). Integral dose, volume receiving 5 Gy, number of monitor units (MU) is compared against DMLC. The mean difference in the MU delivered per fraction between 5, 10 and 15 L SMLC and DMLC was −13.25% (P < 0.001, with paired t test), −11.82% (P < 0.001) and −10.81% (P < 0.001), respectively. The mean difference in the integral dose with 5, 10 and 15 L compared to DMLC was −2.96% (P < 0.001), −2.67% (P = 0.016) and −0.39% (P = 0.430), respectively. However, the difference in low-dose volume (V5Gy) was statistically insignificant with mean difference of 0.60% (P = 0.23), 1.18% (P = 0.017) and 1.70% (P = 0.078), respectively for 5, 10 and 15 L compared to DMLC. Our results show that while choosing the IMRT delivery technique using conventional MLC the concerns about integral dose and volume receiving very low doses such as 5 Gy can be ignored. Medknow Publications 2009 /pmc/articles/PMC2805892/ /pubmed/20098539 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0971-6203.51932 Text en © Journal of Medical Physics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Jothybasu, K. S.
Bahl, Amit
Subramani, V.
Rath, G. K.
Sharma, D. N.
Julka, P. K.
Static versus dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy: Profile of integral dose in carcinoma of the nasopharynx
title Static versus dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy: Profile of integral dose in carcinoma of the nasopharynx
title_full Static versus dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy: Profile of integral dose in carcinoma of the nasopharynx
title_fullStr Static versus dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy: Profile of integral dose in carcinoma of the nasopharynx
title_full_unstemmed Static versus dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy: Profile of integral dose in carcinoma of the nasopharynx
title_short Static versus dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy: Profile of integral dose in carcinoma of the nasopharynx
title_sort static versus dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy: profile of integral dose in carcinoma of the nasopharynx
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2805892/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20098539
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0971-6203.51932
work_keys_str_mv AT jothybasuks staticversusdynamicintensitymodulatedradiotherapyprofileofintegraldoseincarcinomaofthenasopharynx
AT bahlamit staticversusdynamicintensitymodulatedradiotherapyprofileofintegraldoseincarcinomaofthenasopharynx
AT subramaniv staticversusdynamicintensitymodulatedradiotherapyprofileofintegraldoseincarcinomaofthenasopharynx
AT rathgk staticversusdynamicintensitymodulatedradiotherapyprofileofintegraldoseincarcinomaofthenasopharynx
AT sharmadn staticversusdynamicintensitymodulatedradiotherapyprofileofintegraldoseincarcinomaofthenasopharynx
AT julkapk staticversusdynamicintensitymodulatedradiotherapyprofileofintegraldoseincarcinomaofthenasopharynx