Cargando…

Effects of field parameters on IMRT plan quality for gynecological cancer: A case study

Traditional external beam radiotherapy of gynecological cancer consists of a 3D, four‐field‐box technique. The radiation treatment area is a large region of normal tissue, with greater inhomogeneity over the treatment volume, which could benefit more with intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fung, Albert Y.C., Enke, Charles A., Ayyangar, Komanduri M., Thompson, Robert B., Zhen, Weining, Raman, Natarajan V., Djajaputra, David, Li, Sicong, Nehru, Ramasamy M., Pillai, Sushakumari, Sourivong, Paul, Headley, Mary, Yager, Ann L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2005
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5723493/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16143791
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v6i3.2087
_version_ 1783285224548859904
author Fung, Albert Y.C.
Enke, Charles A.
Ayyangar, Komanduri M.
Thompson, Robert B.
Zhen, Weining
Raman, Natarajan V.
Djajaputra, David
Li, Sicong
Nehru, Ramasamy M.
Pillai, Sushakumari
Sourivong, Paul
Headley, Mary
Yager, Ann L.
author_facet Fung, Albert Y.C.
Enke, Charles A.
Ayyangar, Komanduri M.
Thompson, Robert B.
Zhen, Weining
Raman, Natarajan V.
Djajaputra, David
Li, Sicong
Nehru, Ramasamy M.
Pillai, Sushakumari
Sourivong, Paul
Headley, Mary
Yager, Ann L.
author_sort Fung, Albert Y.C.
collection PubMed
description Traditional external beam radiotherapy of gynecological cancer consists of a 3D, four‐field‐box technique. The radiation treatment area is a large region of normal tissue, with greater inhomogeneity over the treatment volume, which could benefit more with intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). This is a case report of IMRT planning for a patient with endometrial cancer. The planning target volume (PTV) spanned the intrapelvic and periaortic lymph nodes to a 33‐cm length. Planning and treatment were accomplished using double isocenters. The IMRT plan was compared with a 3D plan, and the effects of field parameters were studied. Delineated anatomical contours included the intrapelvic nodes (PTV), bone marrow, small bowel, bladder, rectum, sigmoid colon, periaortic nodes (PTV), spinal cord, left kidney, right kidney, large bowel, liver, and tissue (excluding the PTVs). Comparisons were made between IMRT and 3D plans, 23‐MV and 6‐MV energies, zero and rotated collimator angles, different numbers of segments, and opposite gantry angle configurations. The plans were evaluated based on dose‐volume histograms (DVHs). Compared with the 3D plan, the IMRT plan had superior dose conformity and spared the bladder and sigmoid colon embedded in the intrapelvic nodes. The higher energy (23 MV) reduced the dose to most critical organs and delivered less integral dose. Zero collimator angles resulted in a better plan than “optimized” collimator angles, with lower dose to most of the normal structures. The number of segments did not have much effect on isodose distribution, but a reasonable number of segments was necessary to keep treatment time from being prohibitively long. Gantry angles, when evenly spaced, had no noticeable effect on the plan. The patient tolerated the treatment well, and the initial complete blood count was favorable. Our results indicated that large‐volume tumor sites may also benefit from precise conformal delivery of IMRT. PACS numbers: 87.53.Kn, 87.53.Tf
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5723493
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2005
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57234932018-04-02 Effects of field parameters on IMRT plan quality for gynecological cancer: A case study Fung, Albert Y.C. Enke, Charles A. Ayyangar, Komanduri M. Thompson, Robert B. Zhen, Weining Raman, Natarajan V. Djajaputra, David Li, Sicong Nehru, Ramasamy M. Pillai, Sushakumari Sourivong, Paul Headley, Mary Yager, Ann L. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics Traditional external beam radiotherapy of gynecological cancer consists of a 3D, four‐field‐box technique. The radiation treatment area is a large region of normal tissue, with greater inhomogeneity over the treatment volume, which could benefit more with intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). This is a case report of IMRT planning for a patient with endometrial cancer. The planning target volume (PTV) spanned the intrapelvic and periaortic lymph nodes to a 33‐cm length. Planning and treatment were accomplished using double isocenters. The IMRT plan was compared with a 3D plan, and the effects of field parameters were studied. Delineated anatomical contours included the intrapelvic nodes (PTV), bone marrow, small bowel, bladder, rectum, sigmoid colon, periaortic nodes (PTV), spinal cord, left kidney, right kidney, large bowel, liver, and tissue (excluding the PTVs). Comparisons were made between IMRT and 3D plans, 23‐MV and 6‐MV energies, zero and rotated collimator angles, different numbers of segments, and opposite gantry angle configurations. The plans were evaluated based on dose‐volume histograms (DVHs). Compared with the 3D plan, the IMRT plan had superior dose conformity and spared the bladder and sigmoid colon embedded in the intrapelvic nodes. The higher energy (23 MV) reduced the dose to most critical organs and delivered less integral dose. Zero collimator angles resulted in a better plan than “optimized” collimator angles, with lower dose to most of the normal structures. The number of segments did not have much effect on isodose distribution, but a reasonable number of segments was necessary to keep treatment time from being prohibitively long. Gantry angles, when evenly spaced, had no noticeable effect on the plan. The patient tolerated the treatment well, and the initial complete blood count was favorable. Our results indicated that large‐volume tumor sites may also benefit from precise conformal delivery of IMRT. PACS numbers: 87.53.Kn, 87.53.Tf John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2005-08-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5723493/ /pubmed/16143791 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v6i3.2087 Text en © 2005 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Fung, Albert Y.C.
Enke, Charles A.
Ayyangar, Komanduri M.
Thompson, Robert B.
Zhen, Weining
Raman, Natarajan V.
Djajaputra, David
Li, Sicong
Nehru, Ramasamy M.
Pillai, Sushakumari
Sourivong, Paul
Headley, Mary
Yager, Ann L.
Effects of field parameters on IMRT plan quality for gynecological cancer: A case study
title Effects of field parameters on IMRT plan quality for gynecological cancer: A case study
title_full Effects of field parameters on IMRT plan quality for gynecological cancer: A case study
title_fullStr Effects of field parameters on IMRT plan quality for gynecological cancer: A case study
title_full_unstemmed Effects of field parameters on IMRT plan quality for gynecological cancer: A case study
title_short Effects of field parameters on IMRT plan quality for gynecological cancer: A case study
title_sort effects of field parameters on imrt plan quality for gynecological cancer: a case study
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5723493/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16143791
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v6i3.2087
work_keys_str_mv AT fungalbertyc effectsoffieldparametersonimrtplanqualityforgynecologicalcanceracasestudy
AT enkecharlesa effectsoffieldparametersonimrtplanqualityforgynecologicalcanceracasestudy
AT ayyangarkomandurim effectsoffieldparametersonimrtplanqualityforgynecologicalcanceracasestudy
AT thompsonrobertb effectsoffieldparametersonimrtplanqualityforgynecologicalcanceracasestudy
AT zhenweining effectsoffieldparametersonimrtplanqualityforgynecologicalcanceracasestudy
AT ramannatarajanv effectsoffieldparametersonimrtplanqualityforgynecologicalcanceracasestudy
AT djajaputradavid effectsoffieldparametersonimrtplanqualityforgynecologicalcanceracasestudy
AT lisicong effectsoffieldparametersonimrtplanqualityforgynecologicalcanceracasestudy
AT nehruramasamym effectsoffieldparametersonimrtplanqualityforgynecologicalcanceracasestudy
AT pillaisushakumari effectsoffieldparametersonimrtplanqualityforgynecologicalcanceracasestudy
AT sourivongpaul effectsoffieldparametersonimrtplanqualityforgynecologicalcanceracasestudy
AT headleymary effectsoffieldparametersonimrtplanqualityforgynecologicalcanceracasestudy
AT yagerannl effectsoffieldparametersonimrtplanqualityforgynecologicalcanceracasestudy