Cargando…

Comparison of Radiation-Induced Secondary Malignancy Risk Between Sequential and Simultaneous Integrated Boost for the Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy versus Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the secondary cancer risk (SCR) between the sequential boost (SEQ) technique and simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Haciislamoglu, Emel, Cinar, Yunus, Eren, Mehmet, Canyilmaz, Emine, Gurcan, Fatih, Serdar, Lasif, Yoney, Adnan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7152539/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32308488
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S244901
_version_ 1783521501506437120
author Haciislamoglu, Emel
Cinar, Yunus
Eren, Mehmet
Canyilmaz, Emine
Gurcan, Fatih
Serdar, Lasif
Yoney, Adnan
author_facet Haciislamoglu, Emel
Cinar, Yunus
Eren, Mehmet
Canyilmaz, Emine
Gurcan, Fatih
Serdar, Lasif
Yoney, Adnan
author_sort Haciislamoglu, Emel
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the secondary cancer risk (SCR) between the sequential boost (SEQ) technique and simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) using the concepts of organ equivalent dose (OED) and excess absolute risk (EAR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: IMRT-SEQ, VMAT-SEQ, IMRT-SIB, and VMAT-SIB plans were created with identical objective functions for five patients with early-stage NPC. Three different planning tumor volumes (PTVs; PTV(1), PTV(2), and PTV(3)) were delineated for each patient, and the prescribed doses were 50 Gy, 60 Gy, and 70 Gy (2 Gy/fraction), respectively, for the SEQ technique and 52.8 Gy, 59.4 Gy, and 69.3 Gy (33 fractions), respectively, for the SIB technique. RESULTS: All plans were clinically acceptable. There was no difference in most OED-based SCRs between IMRT and VMAT when the same fractionation scheme was used. Compared with the SEQ technique, the SIB technique in IMRT and VMAT was associated with the lowest OEDs for the oral cavity, pharynx, parotids, and submandibular glands, resulting in SCR reduction. SCR for the parotids was much lower than that for the other assessed organs when the SIB technique was used. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that OED-based SCRs are lower with the SIB technique than with the SEQ technique in IMRT and VMAT in most organs for which SCR was calculated; furthermore, SCR for the parotids is much lower than that for other organs when the SIB technique is used in patients with NPC.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7152539
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71525392020-04-17 Comparison of Radiation-Induced Secondary Malignancy Risk Between Sequential and Simultaneous Integrated Boost for the Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy versus Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy Haciislamoglu, Emel Cinar, Yunus Eren, Mehmet Canyilmaz, Emine Gurcan, Fatih Serdar, Lasif Yoney, Adnan Cancer Manag Res Original Research PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the secondary cancer risk (SCR) between the sequential boost (SEQ) technique and simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) using the concepts of organ equivalent dose (OED) and excess absolute risk (EAR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: IMRT-SEQ, VMAT-SEQ, IMRT-SIB, and VMAT-SIB plans were created with identical objective functions for five patients with early-stage NPC. Three different planning tumor volumes (PTVs; PTV(1), PTV(2), and PTV(3)) were delineated for each patient, and the prescribed doses were 50 Gy, 60 Gy, and 70 Gy (2 Gy/fraction), respectively, for the SEQ technique and 52.8 Gy, 59.4 Gy, and 69.3 Gy (33 fractions), respectively, for the SIB technique. RESULTS: All plans were clinically acceptable. There was no difference in most OED-based SCRs between IMRT and VMAT when the same fractionation scheme was used. Compared with the SEQ technique, the SIB technique in IMRT and VMAT was associated with the lowest OEDs for the oral cavity, pharynx, parotids, and submandibular glands, resulting in SCR reduction. SCR for the parotids was much lower than that for the other assessed organs when the SIB technique was used. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that OED-based SCRs are lower with the SIB technique than with the SEQ technique in IMRT and VMAT in most organs for which SCR was calculated; furthermore, SCR for the parotids is much lower than that for other organs when the SIB technique is used in patients with NPC. Dove 2020-04-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7152539/ /pubmed/32308488 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S244901 Text en © 2020 Haciislamoglu et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Haciislamoglu, Emel
Cinar, Yunus
Eren, Mehmet
Canyilmaz, Emine
Gurcan, Fatih
Serdar, Lasif
Yoney, Adnan
Comparison of Radiation-Induced Secondary Malignancy Risk Between Sequential and Simultaneous Integrated Boost for the Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy versus Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy
title Comparison of Radiation-Induced Secondary Malignancy Risk Between Sequential and Simultaneous Integrated Boost for the Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy versus Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy
title_full Comparison of Radiation-Induced Secondary Malignancy Risk Between Sequential and Simultaneous Integrated Boost for the Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy versus Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy
title_fullStr Comparison of Radiation-Induced Secondary Malignancy Risk Between Sequential and Simultaneous Integrated Boost for the Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy versus Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Radiation-Induced Secondary Malignancy Risk Between Sequential and Simultaneous Integrated Boost for the Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy versus Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy
title_short Comparison of Radiation-Induced Secondary Malignancy Risk Between Sequential and Simultaneous Integrated Boost for the Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy versus Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy
title_sort comparison of radiation-induced secondary malignancy risk between sequential and simultaneous integrated boost for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus volumetric-modulated arc therapy
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7152539/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32308488
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S244901
work_keys_str_mv AT haciislamogluemel comparisonofradiationinducedsecondarymalignancyriskbetweensequentialandsimultaneousintegratedboostforthetreatmentofnasopharyngealcarcinomaintensitymodulatedradiotherapyversusvolumetricmodulatedarctherapy
AT cinaryunus comparisonofradiationinducedsecondarymalignancyriskbetweensequentialandsimultaneousintegratedboostforthetreatmentofnasopharyngealcarcinomaintensitymodulatedradiotherapyversusvolumetricmodulatedarctherapy
AT erenmehmet comparisonofradiationinducedsecondarymalignancyriskbetweensequentialandsimultaneousintegratedboostforthetreatmentofnasopharyngealcarcinomaintensitymodulatedradiotherapyversusvolumetricmodulatedarctherapy
AT canyilmazemine comparisonofradiationinducedsecondarymalignancyriskbetweensequentialandsimultaneousintegratedboostforthetreatmentofnasopharyngealcarcinomaintensitymodulatedradiotherapyversusvolumetricmodulatedarctherapy
AT gurcanfatih comparisonofradiationinducedsecondarymalignancyriskbetweensequentialandsimultaneousintegratedboostforthetreatmentofnasopharyngealcarcinomaintensitymodulatedradiotherapyversusvolumetricmodulatedarctherapy
AT serdarlasif comparisonofradiationinducedsecondarymalignancyriskbetweensequentialandsimultaneousintegratedboostforthetreatmentofnasopharyngealcarcinomaintensitymodulatedradiotherapyversusvolumetricmodulatedarctherapy
AT yoneyadnan comparisonofradiationinducedsecondarymalignancyriskbetweensequentialandsimultaneousintegratedboostforthetreatmentofnasopharyngealcarcinomaintensitymodulatedradiotherapyversusvolumetricmodulatedarctherapy