Cargando…

Dosimetric and Radiobiological Comparison of External Beam Radiotherapy Using Simultaneous Integrated Boost Technique for Esophageal Cancer in Different Location

Objectives: To compare treatment plans of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique for esophageal cancer (EC) of different locations using dosimetry and radiobiology. Methods...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Lu, Li, Chengqiang, Meng, Xue, Li, Chengming, Sun, Xindong, Shang, Dongping, Pang, Linlin, Li, Yixiao, Lu, Jie, Yu, Jinming
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6669560/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31404144
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00674
_version_ 1783440399446048768
author Wang, Lu
Li, Chengqiang
Meng, Xue
Li, Chengming
Sun, Xindong
Shang, Dongping
Pang, Linlin
Li, Yixiao
Lu, Jie
Yu, Jinming
author_facet Wang, Lu
Li, Chengqiang
Meng, Xue
Li, Chengming
Sun, Xindong
Shang, Dongping
Pang, Linlin
Li, Yixiao
Lu, Jie
Yu, Jinming
author_sort Wang, Lu
collection PubMed
description Objectives: To compare treatment plans of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique for esophageal cancer (EC) of different locations using dosimetry and radiobiology. Methods: Forty EC patients were planned for IMRT, VMAT, and HT plans, including 10 cases located in the cervix, upper, middle, and lower thorax, respectively. Dose-volume metrics, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were analyzed to evaluate treatment plans. Results: HT showed significant improvement over IMRT and VMAT in terms of CI (p = 0.007), HI (p < 0.001), and TCP (p < 0.001) in cervical EC. IMRT yielded more superior CI, HI and TCP compared with VMAT and HT in upper and middle thoracic EC (all p < 0.05). Additionally, V30 (27.72 ± 8.67%), mean dose (1801.47 ± 989.58cGy), and NTCP (Niemierko model: 0.44 ± 0.55%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 0.61 ± 0.59%) of heart in IMRT were sharply reduced than VMAT and HT in middle thoracic EC. For lower thoracic EC, the three techniques offered similar CI and HI (all p > 0.05). But VMAT dramatically lowered liver V30 (9.97 ± 2.84%), and reduced NTCP of lungs (Niemierko model: 0.47 ± 0.48%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 1.41 ± 1.07%) and liver (Niemierko model: 0.10 ± 0.08%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 0.17 ± 0.17%). Conclusions: HT was a good option for cervical EC with complex target coverage but little lungs and heart involvement as it achieved superior dose conformity and uniformity. Due to potentially improving tumor control and reducing heart dose with acceptable lungs sparing, IMRT was a preferred choice for upper and middle thoracic EC with large lungs involvement. VMAT could ameliorate therapeutic ratio and lower lungs and liver toxicity, which was beneficial for lower thoracic EC with little thoracic involvement but being closer to heart and liver. Individually choosing optimal technique for EC in different location will be warranted.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6669560
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66695602019-08-09 Dosimetric and Radiobiological Comparison of External Beam Radiotherapy Using Simultaneous Integrated Boost Technique for Esophageal Cancer in Different Location Wang, Lu Li, Chengqiang Meng, Xue Li, Chengming Sun, Xindong Shang, Dongping Pang, Linlin Li, Yixiao Lu, Jie Yu, Jinming Front Oncol Oncology Objectives: To compare treatment plans of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique for esophageal cancer (EC) of different locations using dosimetry and radiobiology. Methods: Forty EC patients were planned for IMRT, VMAT, and HT plans, including 10 cases located in the cervix, upper, middle, and lower thorax, respectively. Dose-volume metrics, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were analyzed to evaluate treatment plans. Results: HT showed significant improvement over IMRT and VMAT in terms of CI (p = 0.007), HI (p < 0.001), and TCP (p < 0.001) in cervical EC. IMRT yielded more superior CI, HI and TCP compared with VMAT and HT in upper and middle thoracic EC (all p < 0.05). Additionally, V30 (27.72 ± 8.67%), mean dose (1801.47 ± 989.58cGy), and NTCP (Niemierko model: 0.44 ± 0.55%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 0.61 ± 0.59%) of heart in IMRT were sharply reduced than VMAT and HT in middle thoracic EC. For lower thoracic EC, the three techniques offered similar CI and HI (all p > 0.05). But VMAT dramatically lowered liver V30 (9.97 ± 2.84%), and reduced NTCP of lungs (Niemierko model: 0.47 ± 0.48%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 1.41 ± 1.07%) and liver (Niemierko model: 0.10 ± 0.08%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 0.17 ± 0.17%). Conclusions: HT was a good option for cervical EC with complex target coverage but little lungs and heart involvement as it achieved superior dose conformity and uniformity. Due to potentially improving tumor control and reducing heart dose with acceptable lungs sparing, IMRT was a preferred choice for upper and middle thoracic EC with large lungs involvement. VMAT could ameliorate therapeutic ratio and lower lungs and liver toxicity, which was beneficial for lower thoracic EC with little thoracic involvement but being closer to heart and liver. Individually choosing optimal technique for EC in different location will be warranted. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-07-25 /pmc/articles/PMC6669560/ /pubmed/31404144 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00674 Text en Copyright © 2019 Wang, Li, Meng, Li, Sun, Shang, Pang, Li, Lu and Yu. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Wang, Lu
Li, Chengqiang
Meng, Xue
Li, Chengming
Sun, Xindong
Shang, Dongping
Pang, Linlin
Li, Yixiao
Lu, Jie
Yu, Jinming
Dosimetric and Radiobiological Comparison of External Beam Radiotherapy Using Simultaneous Integrated Boost Technique for Esophageal Cancer in Different Location
title Dosimetric and Radiobiological Comparison of External Beam Radiotherapy Using Simultaneous Integrated Boost Technique for Esophageal Cancer in Different Location
title_full Dosimetric and Radiobiological Comparison of External Beam Radiotherapy Using Simultaneous Integrated Boost Technique for Esophageal Cancer in Different Location
title_fullStr Dosimetric and Radiobiological Comparison of External Beam Radiotherapy Using Simultaneous Integrated Boost Technique for Esophageal Cancer in Different Location
title_full_unstemmed Dosimetric and Radiobiological Comparison of External Beam Radiotherapy Using Simultaneous Integrated Boost Technique for Esophageal Cancer in Different Location
title_short Dosimetric and Radiobiological Comparison of External Beam Radiotherapy Using Simultaneous Integrated Boost Technique for Esophageal Cancer in Different Location
title_sort dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of external beam radiotherapy using simultaneous integrated boost technique for esophageal cancer in different location
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6669560/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31404144
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00674
work_keys_str_mv AT wanglu dosimetricandradiobiologicalcomparisonofexternalbeamradiotherapyusingsimultaneousintegratedboosttechniqueforesophagealcancerindifferentlocation
AT lichengqiang dosimetricandradiobiologicalcomparisonofexternalbeamradiotherapyusingsimultaneousintegratedboosttechniqueforesophagealcancerindifferentlocation
AT mengxue dosimetricandradiobiologicalcomparisonofexternalbeamradiotherapyusingsimultaneousintegratedboosttechniqueforesophagealcancerindifferentlocation
AT lichengming dosimetricandradiobiologicalcomparisonofexternalbeamradiotherapyusingsimultaneousintegratedboosttechniqueforesophagealcancerindifferentlocation
AT sunxindong dosimetricandradiobiologicalcomparisonofexternalbeamradiotherapyusingsimultaneousintegratedboosttechniqueforesophagealcancerindifferentlocation
AT shangdongping dosimetricandradiobiologicalcomparisonofexternalbeamradiotherapyusingsimultaneousintegratedboosttechniqueforesophagealcancerindifferentlocation
AT panglinlin dosimetricandradiobiologicalcomparisonofexternalbeamradiotherapyusingsimultaneousintegratedboosttechniqueforesophagealcancerindifferentlocation
AT liyixiao dosimetricandradiobiologicalcomparisonofexternalbeamradiotherapyusingsimultaneousintegratedboosttechniqueforesophagealcancerindifferentlocation
AT lujie dosimetricandradiobiologicalcomparisonofexternalbeamradiotherapyusingsimultaneousintegratedboosttechniqueforesophagealcancerindifferentlocation
AT yujinming dosimetricandradiobiologicalcomparisonofexternalbeamradiotherapyusingsimultaneousintegratedboosttechniqueforesophagealcancerindifferentlocation