Cargando…

Dosimetric comparison between jaw tracking and static jaw techniques in intensity-modulated radiotherapy

PURPOSE: To compare the dosimetric differences between jaw tracking technique (JTT) and static jaw technique (SJT) in dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (d-IMRT) and assess the potential advantages of jaw tracking technique. METHODS: Two techniques, jaw tracking and static jaw, were used respe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Feng, Zhongsu, Wu, Hao, Zhang, Yibao, Zhang, Yunjun, Cheng, Jinsheng, Su, Xu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4326511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25623899
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0329-4
_version_ 1782356946339233792
author Feng, Zhongsu
Wu, Hao
Zhang, Yibao
Zhang, Yunjun
Cheng, Jinsheng
Su, Xu
author_facet Feng, Zhongsu
Wu, Hao
Zhang, Yibao
Zhang, Yunjun
Cheng, Jinsheng
Su, Xu
author_sort Feng, Zhongsu
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare the dosimetric differences between jaw tracking technique (JTT) and static jaw technique (SJT) in dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (d-IMRT) and assess the potential advantages of jaw tracking technique. METHODS: Two techniques, jaw tracking and static jaw, were used respectively to develop the d-IMRT plans for 28 cancer patients with various lesion sites: head and neck, lungs, esophageal, abdominal, prostate, rectal and cervical. The dose volume histograms (DVH) and selected dosimetric indexes for the whole body and for organs at risk (OARs) were compared. A two dimensional ionization chamber Array Seven29 (PTW, Freiburg, Germany) and OCTAVIUS Octagonal phantom (PTW, Freiburg, Germany) were used to verify all the plans. RESULTS: For all patients, the treatment plans using both techniques met the clinical requirements. The V(5), V(10), V(20), V(30), V(40) (volumes receiving 5, 10, 20, 30 and 40 Gy at least, respectively), mean dose (D(mean)) for the whole body and V(5), V(10), V(20), D(mean) for lungs in the JTT d-IMRT plans were significantly less than the corresponding values of the SJT d-IMRT plans (p < 0.001). The JTT d-IMRT plans deposited lower maximum dose (D(max)) to the lens, eyes, brainstem, spinal cord, and right optic nerve, the doses reductions for these OARs ranged from 2.2% to 28.6%. The JTT d-IMRT plans deposited significantly lower D(mean) to various OARs (all p values < 0.05), the mean doses reductions for these OARs ranged from 1.1% to 31.0%, and the value reductions depend on the volume and the location of the OARs. The γ evaluation method showed an excellent agreement between calculation and measurement for all techniques with criteria of 3%/3 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Both jaw tracking and static jaw d-IMRT plans can achieve comparable target dose coverage. JTT displays superior OARs sparing than SJT plans. These results are of clinical importance, especially for the patients with large and complex targets but close to some highly radio-sensitive organs to spare, and for patients with local recurrent or secondary primary malignant lesion within a previously irradiated area.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4326511
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43265112015-02-14 Dosimetric comparison between jaw tracking and static jaw techniques in intensity-modulated radiotherapy Feng, Zhongsu Wu, Hao Zhang, Yibao Zhang, Yunjun Cheng, Jinsheng Su, Xu Radiat Oncol Research PURPOSE: To compare the dosimetric differences between jaw tracking technique (JTT) and static jaw technique (SJT) in dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (d-IMRT) and assess the potential advantages of jaw tracking technique. METHODS: Two techniques, jaw tracking and static jaw, were used respectively to develop the d-IMRT plans for 28 cancer patients with various lesion sites: head and neck, lungs, esophageal, abdominal, prostate, rectal and cervical. The dose volume histograms (DVH) and selected dosimetric indexes for the whole body and for organs at risk (OARs) were compared. A two dimensional ionization chamber Array Seven29 (PTW, Freiburg, Germany) and OCTAVIUS Octagonal phantom (PTW, Freiburg, Germany) were used to verify all the plans. RESULTS: For all patients, the treatment plans using both techniques met the clinical requirements. The V(5), V(10), V(20), V(30), V(40) (volumes receiving 5, 10, 20, 30 and 40 Gy at least, respectively), mean dose (D(mean)) for the whole body and V(5), V(10), V(20), D(mean) for lungs in the JTT d-IMRT plans were significantly less than the corresponding values of the SJT d-IMRT plans (p < 0.001). The JTT d-IMRT plans deposited lower maximum dose (D(max)) to the lens, eyes, brainstem, spinal cord, and right optic nerve, the doses reductions for these OARs ranged from 2.2% to 28.6%. The JTT d-IMRT plans deposited significantly lower D(mean) to various OARs (all p values < 0.05), the mean doses reductions for these OARs ranged from 1.1% to 31.0%, and the value reductions depend on the volume and the location of the OARs. The γ evaluation method showed an excellent agreement between calculation and measurement for all techniques with criteria of 3%/3 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Both jaw tracking and static jaw d-IMRT plans can achieve comparable target dose coverage. JTT displays superior OARs sparing than SJT plans. These results are of clinical importance, especially for the patients with large and complex targets but close to some highly radio-sensitive organs to spare, and for patients with local recurrent or secondary primary malignant lesion within a previously irradiated area. BioMed Central 2015-01-27 /pmc/articles/PMC4326511/ /pubmed/25623899 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0329-4 Text en © Feng et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Feng, Zhongsu
Wu, Hao
Zhang, Yibao
Zhang, Yunjun
Cheng, Jinsheng
Su, Xu
Dosimetric comparison between jaw tracking and static jaw techniques in intensity-modulated radiotherapy
title Dosimetric comparison between jaw tracking and static jaw techniques in intensity-modulated radiotherapy
title_full Dosimetric comparison between jaw tracking and static jaw techniques in intensity-modulated radiotherapy
title_fullStr Dosimetric comparison between jaw tracking and static jaw techniques in intensity-modulated radiotherapy
title_full_unstemmed Dosimetric comparison between jaw tracking and static jaw techniques in intensity-modulated radiotherapy
title_short Dosimetric comparison between jaw tracking and static jaw techniques in intensity-modulated radiotherapy
title_sort dosimetric comparison between jaw tracking and static jaw techniques in intensity-modulated radiotherapy
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4326511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25623899
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0329-4
work_keys_str_mv AT fengzhongsu dosimetriccomparisonbetweenjawtrackingandstaticjawtechniquesinintensitymodulatedradiotherapy
AT wuhao dosimetriccomparisonbetweenjawtrackingandstaticjawtechniquesinintensitymodulatedradiotherapy
AT zhangyibao dosimetriccomparisonbetweenjawtrackingandstaticjawtechniquesinintensitymodulatedradiotherapy
AT zhangyunjun dosimetriccomparisonbetweenjawtrackingandstaticjawtechniquesinintensitymodulatedradiotherapy
AT chengjinsheng dosimetriccomparisonbetweenjawtrackingandstaticjawtechniquesinintensitymodulatedradiotherapy
AT suxu dosimetriccomparisonbetweenjawtrackingandstaticjawtechniquesinintensitymodulatedradiotherapy