Cargando…
Prescribed dose versus calculated dose of spinal cord in standard head and neck irradiation assessed by 3-D plan
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Spinal cord toxicity can be dreaded complication while treating head and neck cancer by conventional radiotherapy. Cord sparing approach is applied by two phase planning in conventional head neck radiotherapy. In spite of cord sparing approach spinal cord still receives consi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3961863/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24665442 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2278-330X.126510 |
_version_ | 1782308349181689856 |
---|---|
author | Majumder, Dipanjan Patra, Niladri Bihari Chatterjee, Debashis Mallick, Swapan Kumar Kabasi, Apurba Kumar Majumder, Anjali |
author_facet | Majumder, Dipanjan Patra, Niladri Bihari Chatterjee, Debashis Mallick, Swapan Kumar Kabasi, Apurba Kumar Majumder, Anjali |
author_sort | Majumder, Dipanjan |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Spinal cord toxicity can be dreaded complication while treating head and neck cancer by conventional radiotherapy. Cord sparing approach is applied by two phase planning in conventional head neck radiotherapy. In spite of cord sparing approach spinal cord still receives considerable scatter dose. Our study aims to do the volumetric analysis of spinal cord dosimetry and to correlate with the clinical findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment planning was done in two phases. First phase treatment fields include gross disease- both tumor and involved nodes. in the second phase, treatment field shrinkage was done to cover the gross disease sparing the spinal cord. These fields are termed as off-cord fields. 42 patients with histological proven squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck region were analysed with two groups. In Group A, 46 Gy was given in 23 fractions, and then tumor-boost with off-cord field received 24 Gy in 12 fractions. In Group B 50 Gy was prescribed in 25 fractions initially, then off-cord field given 20 Gy in 10 fractions to analyze theoutcome. Planning Computed tomography (CT) scan was done Philips Brilliance 16 slice CT scan machine, and contouring and dose calculation were done at ASHA treatment planning software. RESULTS: Maximum dose and dose at 1 cm3, 2 cm3, and 5 cm3 were calculated. Maximum dose to cord was 52.6 Gy (range 48.1-49.7 Gy) in Group A and 54.3 Gy (range 51.48-52.33 Gy) in Group B initially. Off-cord fields received mean dose 8.07 Gy (85.85% of maximum) in Group A and 5.47 Gy (86.84% of maximum) in Group B. At the end of 6 months from the last date of radiotherapy, grade 1 spinal cord toxicity found in two patients in Group A and one patient in Group B respectively (P = 0.55). Both groups received additional dose, which are higher than the prescribed dose, but no patients show significant spinal cord toxicity after 6 month of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Spinal cord received scatter dose which much higher than the predicted dose in conventional radiotherapy of head neck cancer. Short term follow up failed to establish clinical correlation with volumetric dose of spinal cord. Two phase cord sparing head neck radiation planning if practiced should be used with caution. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3961863 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-39618632014-03-24 Prescribed dose versus calculated dose of spinal cord in standard head and neck irradiation assessed by 3-D plan Majumder, Dipanjan Patra, Niladri Bihari Chatterjee, Debashis Mallick, Swapan Kumar Kabasi, Apurba Kumar Majumder, Anjali South Asian J Cancer THE CUTTING EDGE OF RADIOTHERAPEUTICS: Original Article BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Spinal cord toxicity can be dreaded complication while treating head and neck cancer by conventional radiotherapy. Cord sparing approach is applied by two phase planning in conventional head neck radiotherapy. In spite of cord sparing approach spinal cord still receives considerable scatter dose. Our study aims to do the volumetric analysis of spinal cord dosimetry and to correlate with the clinical findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment planning was done in two phases. First phase treatment fields include gross disease- both tumor and involved nodes. in the second phase, treatment field shrinkage was done to cover the gross disease sparing the spinal cord. These fields are termed as off-cord fields. 42 patients with histological proven squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck region were analysed with two groups. In Group A, 46 Gy was given in 23 fractions, and then tumor-boost with off-cord field received 24 Gy in 12 fractions. In Group B 50 Gy was prescribed in 25 fractions initially, then off-cord field given 20 Gy in 10 fractions to analyze theoutcome. Planning Computed tomography (CT) scan was done Philips Brilliance 16 slice CT scan machine, and contouring and dose calculation were done at ASHA treatment planning software. RESULTS: Maximum dose and dose at 1 cm3, 2 cm3, and 5 cm3 were calculated. Maximum dose to cord was 52.6 Gy (range 48.1-49.7 Gy) in Group A and 54.3 Gy (range 51.48-52.33 Gy) in Group B initially. Off-cord fields received mean dose 8.07 Gy (85.85% of maximum) in Group A and 5.47 Gy (86.84% of maximum) in Group B. At the end of 6 months from the last date of radiotherapy, grade 1 spinal cord toxicity found in two patients in Group A and one patient in Group B respectively (P = 0.55). Both groups received additional dose, which are higher than the prescribed dose, but no patients show significant spinal cord toxicity after 6 month of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Spinal cord received scatter dose which much higher than the predicted dose in conventional radiotherapy of head neck cancer. Short term follow up failed to establish clinical correlation with volumetric dose of spinal cord. Two phase cord sparing head neck radiation planning if practiced should be used with caution. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC3961863/ /pubmed/24665442 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2278-330X.126510 Text en Copyright: © South Asian Journal of Cancer http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | THE CUTTING EDGE OF RADIOTHERAPEUTICS: Original Article Majumder, Dipanjan Patra, Niladri Bihari Chatterjee, Debashis Mallick, Swapan Kumar Kabasi, Apurba Kumar Majumder, Anjali Prescribed dose versus calculated dose of spinal cord in standard head and neck irradiation assessed by 3-D plan |
title | Prescribed dose versus calculated dose of spinal cord in standard head and neck irradiation assessed by 3-D plan |
title_full | Prescribed dose versus calculated dose of spinal cord in standard head and neck irradiation assessed by 3-D plan |
title_fullStr | Prescribed dose versus calculated dose of spinal cord in standard head and neck irradiation assessed by 3-D plan |
title_full_unstemmed | Prescribed dose versus calculated dose of spinal cord in standard head and neck irradiation assessed by 3-D plan |
title_short | Prescribed dose versus calculated dose of spinal cord in standard head and neck irradiation assessed by 3-D plan |
title_sort | prescribed dose versus calculated dose of spinal cord in standard head and neck irradiation assessed by 3-d plan |
topic | THE CUTTING EDGE OF RADIOTHERAPEUTICS: Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3961863/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24665442 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2278-330X.126510 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT majumderdipanjan prescribeddoseversuscalculateddoseofspinalcordinstandardheadandneckirradiationassessedby3dplan AT patraniladribihari prescribeddoseversuscalculateddoseofspinalcordinstandardheadandneckirradiationassessedby3dplan AT chatterjeedebashis prescribeddoseversuscalculateddoseofspinalcordinstandardheadandneckirradiationassessedby3dplan AT mallickswapankumar prescribeddoseversuscalculateddoseofspinalcordinstandardheadandneckirradiationassessedby3dplan AT kabasiapurbakumar prescribeddoseversuscalculateddoseofspinalcordinstandardheadandneckirradiationassessedby3dplan AT majumderanjali prescribeddoseversuscalculateddoseofspinalcordinstandardheadandneckirradiationassessedby3dplan |