Cargando…

Comparison of simple and complex liver intensity modulated radiotherapy

BACKGROUND: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) may allow improvement in plan quality for treatment of liver cancer, however increasing radiation modulation complexity can lead to increased uncertainties and requirements for quality assurance. This study assesses whether target coverage and norm...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Mark T, Purdie, Thomas G, Eccles, Cynthia L, Sharpe, Michael B, Dawson, Laura A
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003186/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21114865
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-5-115
_version_ 1782193834856284160
author Lee, Mark T
Purdie, Thomas G
Eccles, Cynthia L
Sharpe, Michael B
Dawson, Laura A
author_facet Lee, Mark T
Purdie, Thomas G
Eccles, Cynthia L
Sharpe, Michael B
Dawson, Laura A
author_sort Lee, Mark T
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) may allow improvement in plan quality for treatment of liver cancer, however increasing radiation modulation complexity can lead to increased uncertainties and requirements for quality assurance. This study assesses whether target coverage and normal tissue avoidance can be maintained in liver cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans by systematically reducing the complexity of the delivered fluence. METHODS: An optimal baseline six fraction individualized IMRT plan for 27 patients with 45 liver cancers was developed which provided a median minimum dose to 0.5 cc of the planning target volume (PTV) of 38.3 Gy (range, 25.9-59.5 Gy), in 6 fractions, while maintaining liver toxicity risk <5% and maximum luminal gastrointestinal structure doses of 30 Gy. The number of segments was systematically reduced until normal tissue constraints were exceeded while maintaining equivalent dose coverage to 95% of PTV (PTVD95). Radiotherapy doses were compared between the plans. RESULTS: Reduction in the number of segments was achieved for all 27 plans from a median of 48 segments (range 34-52) to 19 segments (range 6-30), without exceeding normal tissue dose objectives and maintaining equivalent PTVD95 and similar PTV Equivalent Uniform Dose (EUD(-20)) IMRT plans with fewer segments had significantly less monitor units (mean, 1892 reduced to 1695, p = 0.012), but also reduced dose conformity (mean, RTOG Conformity Index 1.42 increased to 1.53 p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Tumour coverage and normal tissue objectives were maintained with simplified liver IMRT, at the expense of reduced conformity.
format Text
id pubmed-3003186
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30031862010-12-18 Comparison of simple and complex liver intensity modulated radiotherapy Lee, Mark T Purdie, Thomas G Eccles, Cynthia L Sharpe, Michael B Dawson, Laura A Radiat Oncol Research BACKGROUND: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) may allow improvement in plan quality for treatment of liver cancer, however increasing radiation modulation complexity can lead to increased uncertainties and requirements for quality assurance. This study assesses whether target coverage and normal tissue avoidance can be maintained in liver cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans by systematically reducing the complexity of the delivered fluence. METHODS: An optimal baseline six fraction individualized IMRT plan for 27 patients with 45 liver cancers was developed which provided a median minimum dose to 0.5 cc of the planning target volume (PTV) of 38.3 Gy (range, 25.9-59.5 Gy), in 6 fractions, while maintaining liver toxicity risk <5% and maximum luminal gastrointestinal structure doses of 30 Gy. The number of segments was systematically reduced until normal tissue constraints were exceeded while maintaining equivalent dose coverage to 95% of PTV (PTVD95). Radiotherapy doses were compared between the plans. RESULTS: Reduction in the number of segments was achieved for all 27 plans from a median of 48 segments (range 34-52) to 19 segments (range 6-30), without exceeding normal tissue dose objectives and maintaining equivalent PTVD95 and similar PTV Equivalent Uniform Dose (EUD(-20)) IMRT plans with fewer segments had significantly less monitor units (mean, 1892 reduced to 1695, p = 0.012), but also reduced dose conformity (mean, RTOG Conformity Index 1.42 increased to 1.53 p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Tumour coverage and normal tissue objectives were maintained with simplified liver IMRT, at the expense of reduced conformity. BioMed Central 2010-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC3003186/ /pubmed/21114865 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-5-115 Text en Copyright ©2010 Lee et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Lee, Mark T
Purdie, Thomas G
Eccles, Cynthia L
Sharpe, Michael B
Dawson, Laura A
Comparison of simple and complex liver intensity modulated radiotherapy
title Comparison of simple and complex liver intensity modulated radiotherapy
title_full Comparison of simple and complex liver intensity modulated radiotherapy
title_fullStr Comparison of simple and complex liver intensity modulated radiotherapy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of simple and complex liver intensity modulated radiotherapy
title_short Comparison of simple and complex liver intensity modulated radiotherapy
title_sort comparison of simple and complex liver intensity modulated radiotherapy
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003186/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21114865
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-5-115
work_keys_str_mv AT leemarkt comparisonofsimpleandcomplexliverintensitymodulatedradiotherapy
AT purdiethomasg comparisonofsimpleandcomplexliverintensitymodulatedradiotherapy
AT ecclescynthial comparisonofsimpleandcomplexliverintensitymodulatedradiotherapy
AT sharpemichaelb comparisonofsimpleandcomplexliverintensitymodulatedradiotherapy
AT dawsonlauraa comparisonofsimpleandcomplexliverintensitymodulatedradiotherapy