Cargando…

RapidArc, SmartArc and TomoHD compared with classical step and shoot and sliding window intensity modulated radiotherapy in an oropharyngeal cancer treatment plan comparison

BACKROUND: Radiotherapy techniques have evolved rapidly over the last decade with the introduction of Intensity Modulated RadioTherapy (IMRT) in different forms. It is not clear which of the IMRT techniques is superior in the treatment of head and neck cancer patients in terms of coverage of the pla...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Van Gestel, Dirk, van Vliet-Vroegindeweij, Corine, Van den Heuvel, Frank, Crijns, Wouter, Coelmont, Ann, De Ost, Bie, Holt, Andrea, Lamers, Emmy, Geussens, Yasmyne, Nuyts, Sandra, Van den Weyngaert, Danielle, Van den Wyngaert, Tim, Vermorken, Jan B, Gregoire, Vincent
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3599972/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23425449
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-8-37
_version_ 1782475571574341632
author Van Gestel, Dirk
van Vliet-Vroegindeweij, Corine
Van den Heuvel, Frank
Crijns, Wouter
Coelmont, Ann
De Ost, Bie
Holt, Andrea
Lamers, Emmy
Geussens, Yasmyne
Nuyts, Sandra
Van den Weyngaert, Danielle
Van den Wyngaert, Tim
Vermorken, Jan B
Gregoire, Vincent
author_facet Van Gestel, Dirk
van Vliet-Vroegindeweij, Corine
Van den Heuvel, Frank
Crijns, Wouter
Coelmont, Ann
De Ost, Bie
Holt, Andrea
Lamers, Emmy
Geussens, Yasmyne
Nuyts, Sandra
Van den Weyngaert, Danielle
Van den Wyngaert, Tim
Vermorken, Jan B
Gregoire, Vincent
author_sort Van Gestel, Dirk
collection PubMed
description BACKROUND: Radiotherapy techniques have evolved rapidly over the last decade with the introduction of Intensity Modulated RadioTherapy (IMRT) in different forms. It is not clear which of the IMRT techniques is superior in the treatment of head and neck cancer patients in terms of coverage of the planning target volumes (PTVs), sparing the organs at risk (OARs), dose to the normal tissue, number of monitor units needed and delivery time. The present paper aims to compare Step and Shoot (SS) IMRT, Sliding Window (SW) IMRT, RapidArc (RA) planned with Eclipse, Elekta VMAT planned with SmartArc (SA) and helical TomoHD(TM) (HT). METHODS: Target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) of five patients with oropharyngeal cancer were delineated on contrast enhanced CT-scans, then treatment plans were generated on five different IMRT systems. In 32 fractions, 69.12 Gy and 56 Gy were planned to the therapeutic and prophylactic PTVs, respectively. For the PTVs and 26 OARs ICRU 83 reporting guidelines were followed. Differences in the studied parameters between treatment planning systems were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: Mean Homogeneity Index of PTV(therapeutic) is better with HT(.06) followed by SA(.08), RA(.10), SW(.10) and SS(.11). PTV(prophylactic) is most homogeneous with RA. Parotid glands prescribed mean doses are only obtained by SA and HT, 20.6 Gy and 21.7 Gy for the contralateral and 25.6 Gy and 24.1 Gy for the ipsilateral, against 25.6 Gy and 32.0 Gy for RA, 26.4 Gy and 34.6 Gy for SW, and 28.2 Gy and 34.0 Gy for SS. RA uses the least monitor units, HT the most. Treatment times are 3.05 min for RA, and 5.9 min for SA and HT. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of oropharyngeal cancer, we consider rotational IMRT techniques preferable to fixed gantry techniques due to faster fraction delivery and better sparing of OARs without a higher integral dose. TomoHD gives most homogeneous target coverage with more sparing of spinal cord, brainstem, parotids and the lower swallowing apparatus than most of the other systems. Between RA and SA, SA gives a more homogeneous PTV(therapeutic) while sparing the parotids more, but the delivery of RA is twice as fast with less overdose to the PTV(elective).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3599972
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35999722013-03-17 RapidArc, SmartArc and TomoHD compared with classical step and shoot and sliding window intensity modulated radiotherapy in an oropharyngeal cancer treatment plan comparison Van Gestel, Dirk van Vliet-Vroegindeweij, Corine Van den Heuvel, Frank Crijns, Wouter Coelmont, Ann De Ost, Bie Holt, Andrea Lamers, Emmy Geussens, Yasmyne Nuyts, Sandra Van den Weyngaert, Danielle Van den Wyngaert, Tim Vermorken, Jan B Gregoire, Vincent Radiat Oncol Research BACKROUND: Radiotherapy techniques have evolved rapidly over the last decade with the introduction of Intensity Modulated RadioTherapy (IMRT) in different forms. It is not clear which of the IMRT techniques is superior in the treatment of head and neck cancer patients in terms of coverage of the planning target volumes (PTVs), sparing the organs at risk (OARs), dose to the normal tissue, number of monitor units needed and delivery time. The present paper aims to compare Step and Shoot (SS) IMRT, Sliding Window (SW) IMRT, RapidArc (RA) planned with Eclipse, Elekta VMAT planned with SmartArc (SA) and helical TomoHD(TM) (HT). METHODS: Target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) of five patients with oropharyngeal cancer were delineated on contrast enhanced CT-scans, then treatment plans were generated on five different IMRT systems. In 32 fractions, 69.12 Gy and 56 Gy were planned to the therapeutic and prophylactic PTVs, respectively. For the PTVs and 26 OARs ICRU 83 reporting guidelines were followed. Differences in the studied parameters between treatment planning systems were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: Mean Homogeneity Index of PTV(therapeutic) is better with HT(.06) followed by SA(.08), RA(.10), SW(.10) and SS(.11). PTV(prophylactic) is most homogeneous with RA. Parotid glands prescribed mean doses are only obtained by SA and HT, 20.6 Gy and 21.7 Gy for the contralateral and 25.6 Gy and 24.1 Gy for the ipsilateral, against 25.6 Gy and 32.0 Gy for RA, 26.4 Gy and 34.6 Gy for SW, and 28.2 Gy and 34.0 Gy for SS. RA uses the least monitor units, HT the most. Treatment times are 3.05 min for RA, and 5.9 min for SA and HT. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of oropharyngeal cancer, we consider rotational IMRT techniques preferable to fixed gantry techniques due to faster fraction delivery and better sparing of OARs without a higher integral dose. TomoHD gives most homogeneous target coverage with more sparing of spinal cord, brainstem, parotids and the lower swallowing apparatus than most of the other systems. Between RA and SA, SA gives a more homogeneous PTV(therapeutic) while sparing the parotids more, but the delivery of RA is twice as fast with less overdose to the PTV(elective). BioMed Central 2013-02-20 /pmc/articles/PMC3599972/ /pubmed/23425449 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-8-37 Text en Copyright ©2013 Van Gestel 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
Van Gestel, Dirk
van Vliet-Vroegindeweij, Corine
Van den Heuvel, Frank
Crijns, Wouter
Coelmont, Ann
De Ost, Bie
Holt, Andrea
Lamers, Emmy
Geussens, Yasmyne
Nuyts, Sandra
Van den Weyngaert, Danielle
Van den Wyngaert, Tim
Vermorken, Jan B
Gregoire, Vincent
RapidArc, SmartArc and TomoHD compared with classical step and shoot and sliding window intensity modulated radiotherapy in an oropharyngeal cancer treatment plan comparison
title RapidArc, SmartArc and TomoHD compared with classical step and shoot and sliding window intensity modulated radiotherapy in an oropharyngeal cancer treatment plan comparison
title_full RapidArc, SmartArc and TomoHD compared with classical step and shoot and sliding window intensity modulated radiotherapy in an oropharyngeal cancer treatment plan comparison
title_fullStr RapidArc, SmartArc and TomoHD compared with classical step and shoot and sliding window intensity modulated radiotherapy in an oropharyngeal cancer treatment plan comparison
title_full_unstemmed RapidArc, SmartArc and TomoHD compared with classical step and shoot and sliding window intensity modulated radiotherapy in an oropharyngeal cancer treatment plan comparison
title_short RapidArc, SmartArc and TomoHD compared with classical step and shoot and sliding window intensity modulated radiotherapy in an oropharyngeal cancer treatment plan comparison
title_sort rapidarc, smartarc and tomohd compared with classical step and shoot and sliding window intensity modulated radiotherapy in an oropharyngeal cancer treatment plan comparison
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3599972/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23425449
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-8-37
work_keys_str_mv AT vangesteldirk rapidarcsmartarcandtomohdcomparedwithclassicalstepandshootandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyinanoropharyngealcancertreatmentplancomparison
AT vanvlietvroegindeweijcorine rapidarcsmartarcandtomohdcomparedwithclassicalstepandshootandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyinanoropharyngealcancertreatmentplancomparison
AT vandenheuvelfrank rapidarcsmartarcandtomohdcomparedwithclassicalstepandshootandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyinanoropharyngealcancertreatmentplancomparison
AT crijnswouter rapidarcsmartarcandtomohdcomparedwithclassicalstepandshootandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyinanoropharyngealcancertreatmentplancomparison
AT coelmontann rapidarcsmartarcandtomohdcomparedwithclassicalstepandshootandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyinanoropharyngealcancertreatmentplancomparison
AT deostbie rapidarcsmartarcandtomohdcomparedwithclassicalstepandshootandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyinanoropharyngealcancertreatmentplancomparison
AT holtandrea rapidarcsmartarcandtomohdcomparedwithclassicalstepandshootandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyinanoropharyngealcancertreatmentplancomparison
AT lamersemmy rapidarcsmartarcandtomohdcomparedwithclassicalstepandshootandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyinanoropharyngealcancertreatmentplancomparison
AT geussensyasmyne rapidarcsmartarcandtomohdcomparedwithclassicalstepandshootandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyinanoropharyngealcancertreatmentplancomparison
AT nuytssandra rapidarcsmartarcandtomohdcomparedwithclassicalstepandshootandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyinanoropharyngealcancertreatmentplancomparison
AT vandenweyngaertdanielle rapidarcsmartarcandtomohdcomparedwithclassicalstepandshootandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyinanoropharyngealcancertreatmentplancomparison
AT vandenwyngaerttim rapidarcsmartarcandtomohdcomparedwithclassicalstepandshootandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyinanoropharyngealcancertreatmentplancomparison
AT vermorkenjanb rapidarcsmartarcandtomohdcomparedwithclassicalstepandshootandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyinanoropharyngealcancertreatmentplancomparison
AT gregoirevincent rapidarcsmartarcandtomohdcomparedwithclassicalstepandshootandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyinanoropharyngealcancertreatmentplancomparison