Cargando…

Evaluation of the dosimetric impact of applying flattening filter-free beams in intensity-modulated radiotherapy for early-stage upper thoracic carcinoma of oesophagus

INTRODUCTION: Flattening filter-free (FFF) radiation beams have recently become clinically available on modern linear accelerators in radiation therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the dosimetric impact of using FFF beams in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for early-stage upper thoracic oes...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Wuzhe, Lin, Zhixiong, Yang, Zhining, Fang, Weisheng, Lai, Peibo, Lu, Jiayang, Wu, Vincent WC
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BlackWell Publishing Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4462982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26229675
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.93
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Flattening filter-free (FFF) radiation beams have recently become clinically available on modern linear accelerators in radiation therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the dosimetric impact of using FFF beams in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for early-stage upper thoracic oesophageal cancer. METHODS: Eleven patients with primary stage upper thoracic oesophageal cancer were recruited. For each patient, two IMRT plans were computed using conventional beams (Con-P) and FFF beams (FFF-P), respectively. Both plans employed a five-beam arrangement and were prescribed with 64 Gy to (planning target volume) PTV1 and 54 Gy to PTV2 in 32 fractions using 6 MV photons. The dose parameters of the target volumes and organs at risks (OARs), and treatment parameters including the monitor units (MU) and treatment time (TT) for Con-P and FFF-P were recorded and compared. RESULTS: The mean D(5) of PTV1 and PTV2 were higher in FFF-P than Con-P by 0.4 Gy and 0.3 Gy, respectively. For the OARs, all the dose parameters did not show significant difference between the two plans except the mean V(5) and V(10) of the lung in which the FFF-P was lower (46.7% vs. 47.3% and 39.1% vs. 39.6%, respectively). FFF-P required 54% more MU but 18.4% less irradiation time when compared to Con-P. CONCLUSION: The target volume and OARs dose distributions between the two plans were comparable. However, FFF-P was more effective in sparing the lung from low dose and reduced the mean TT compared with Con-P. Long-term clinical studies are suggested to evaluate the radiobiological effects of FFF beams.