Cargando…

IGRT versus non-IGRT for postoperative head-and-neck IMRT patients: dosimetric consequences arising from a PTV margin reduction

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the impact of image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) versus non-image-guided radiation therapy (non-IGRT) on the dose to the clinical target volume (CTV) and the cervical spinal cord during fractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for head-and-neck cancer (HNC...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schwarz, Michael, Giske, Kristina, Stoll, Armin, Nill, Simeon, Huber, Peter E, Debus, Jürgen, Bendl, Rolf, Stoiber, Eva M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484069/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22873744
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-7-133
_version_ 1782248094327373824
author Schwarz, Michael
Giske, Kristina
Stoll, Armin
Nill, Simeon
Huber, Peter E
Debus, Jürgen
Bendl, Rolf
Stoiber, Eva M
author_facet Schwarz, Michael
Giske, Kristina
Stoll, Armin
Nill, Simeon
Huber, Peter E
Debus, Jürgen
Bendl, Rolf
Stoiber, Eva M
author_sort Schwarz, Michael
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To evaluate the impact of image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) versus non-image-guided radiation therapy (non-IGRT) on the dose to the clinical target volume (CTV) and the cervical spinal cord during fractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for head-and-neck cancer (HNC) patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For detailed investigation, 4 exemplary patients with daily control-CT scans (total 118 CT scans) were analyzed. For the IGRT approach a target point correction (TPC) derived from a rigid registration focused to the high-dose region was used. In the non-IGRT setting, instead of a TPC, an additional cohort-based safety margin was applied. The dose distributions of the CTV and spinal cord were calculated on each control-CT and the resulting dose volume histograms (DVHs) were compared with the planned ones fraction by fraction. The D50 and D98 values for the CTV and the D5 values of the spinal cord were additionally reported. RESULTS: In general, the D50 and D98 histograms show no remarkable difference between both strategies. Yet, our detailed analysis also reveals differences in individual dose coverage worth inspection. Using IGRT, the D5 histograms show that the spinal cord less frequently receives a higher dose than planned compared to the non-IGRT setting. This effect is even more pronounced when looking at the curve progressions of the respective DVHs. CONCLUSIONS: Both approaches are equally effective in maintaining CTV coverage. However, IGRT is beneficial in spinal cord sparing. The use of an additional margin in the non-IGRT approach frequently results in a higher dose to the spinal cord than originally planned. This implies that a margin reduction combined with an IGRT correction helps to maintain spinal cord dose sparing best as possible. Yet, a detailed analysis of the dosimetric consequences dependent on the used strategy is required, to detect single fractions with unacceptable dosimetric deviations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3484069
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34840692012-10-31 IGRT versus non-IGRT for postoperative head-and-neck IMRT patients: dosimetric consequences arising from a PTV margin reduction Schwarz, Michael Giske, Kristina Stoll, Armin Nill, Simeon Huber, Peter E Debus, Jürgen Bendl, Rolf Stoiber, Eva M Radiat Oncol Research BACKGROUND: To evaluate the impact of image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) versus non-image-guided radiation therapy (non-IGRT) on the dose to the clinical target volume (CTV) and the cervical spinal cord during fractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for head-and-neck cancer (HNC) patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For detailed investigation, 4 exemplary patients with daily control-CT scans (total 118 CT scans) were analyzed. For the IGRT approach a target point correction (TPC) derived from a rigid registration focused to the high-dose region was used. In the non-IGRT setting, instead of a TPC, an additional cohort-based safety margin was applied. The dose distributions of the CTV and spinal cord were calculated on each control-CT and the resulting dose volume histograms (DVHs) were compared with the planned ones fraction by fraction. The D50 and D98 values for the CTV and the D5 values of the spinal cord were additionally reported. RESULTS: In general, the D50 and D98 histograms show no remarkable difference between both strategies. Yet, our detailed analysis also reveals differences in individual dose coverage worth inspection. Using IGRT, the D5 histograms show that the spinal cord less frequently receives a higher dose than planned compared to the non-IGRT setting. This effect is even more pronounced when looking at the curve progressions of the respective DVHs. CONCLUSIONS: Both approaches are equally effective in maintaining CTV coverage. However, IGRT is beneficial in spinal cord sparing. The use of an additional margin in the non-IGRT approach frequently results in a higher dose to the spinal cord than originally planned. This implies that a margin reduction combined with an IGRT correction helps to maintain spinal cord dose sparing best as possible. Yet, a detailed analysis of the dosimetric consequences dependent on the used strategy is required, to detect single fractions with unacceptable dosimetric deviations. BioMed Central 2012-08-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3484069/ /pubmed/22873744 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-7-133 Text en Copyright ©2012 Schwarz 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
Schwarz, Michael
Giske, Kristina
Stoll, Armin
Nill, Simeon
Huber, Peter E
Debus, Jürgen
Bendl, Rolf
Stoiber, Eva M
IGRT versus non-IGRT for postoperative head-and-neck IMRT patients: dosimetric consequences arising from a PTV margin reduction
title IGRT versus non-IGRT for postoperative head-and-neck IMRT patients: dosimetric consequences arising from a PTV margin reduction
title_full IGRT versus non-IGRT for postoperative head-and-neck IMRT patients: dosimetric consequences arising from a PTV margin reduction
title_fullStr IGRT versus non-IGRT for postoperative head-and-neck IMRT patients: dosimetric consequences arising from a PTV margin reduction
title_full_unstemmed IGRT versus non-IGRT for postoperative head-and-neck IMRT patients: dosimetric consequences arising from a PTV margin reduction
title_short IGRT versus non-IGRT for postoperative head-and-neck IMRT patients: dosimetric consequences arising from a PTV margin reduction
title_sort igrt versus non-igrt for postoperative head-and-neck imrt patients: dosimetric consequences arising from a ptv margin reduction
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484069/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22873744
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-7-133
work_keys_str_mv AT schwarzmichael igrtversusnonigrtforpostoperativeheadandneckimrtpatientsdosimetricconsequencesarisingfromaptvmarginreduction
AT giskekristina igrtversusnonigrtforpostoperativeheadandneckimrtpatientsdosimetricconsequencesarisingfromaptvmarginreduction
AT stollarmin igrtversusnonigrtforpostoperativeheadandneckimrtpatientsdosimetricconsequencesarisingfromaptvmarginreduction
AT nillsimeon igrtversusnonigrtforpostoperativeheadandneckimrtpatientsdosimetricconsequencesarisingfromaptvmarginreduction
AT huberpetere igrtversusnonigrtforpostoperativeheadandneckimrtpatientsdosimetricconsequencesarisingfromaptvmarginreduction
AT debusjurgen igrtversusnonigrtforpostoperativeheadandneckimrtpatientsdosimetricconsequencesarisingfromaptvmarginreduction
AT bendlrolf igrtversusnonigrtforpostoperativeheadandneckimrtpatientsdosimetricconsequencesarisingfromaptvmarginreduction
AT stoiberevam igrtversusnonigrtforpostoperativeheadandneckimrtpatientsdosimetricconsequencesarisingfromaptvmarginreduction