Cargando…

Delineation of Oral Mucosa as a Pseudo-Organ-at-Risk May Lead to a Decrease in the Incidence of Oral Mucositis: A Dosimetric Analysis of Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Plans in Head and Neck Cancers

Introduction Oral mucositis is a common and potentially serious complication of radiation in head and neck cancer treatment. Severe mucositis causes pain, difficulty in chewing and swallowing that can cause treatment breaks and can cause treatment failures leading to local recurrence or a decrease i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khattar, Himanshi, Kumar, Piyush, S, Navitha
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9056708/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35505730
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.23716
Descripción
Sumario:Introduction Oral mucositis is a common and potentially serious complication of radiation in head and neck cancer treatment. Severe mucositis causes pain, difficulty in chewing and swallowing that can cause treatment breaks and can cause treatment failures leading to local recurrence or a decrease in overall survival. The contouring of the planning target volume (PTV) and organ at risk (OAR) leaves some undefined regions on computed tomography imaging. The treatment planning system uses these regions as dumping sites for the dose in order to achieve the optimum plan. The present study was done to assess the dose going to these unspecified regions termed as pseudo-OARs and whether delineation of these structures and prescribing a dose constraint will reduce the dose to the oral mucosa without compromising the quality of the treatment plan. Methods Twenty patients of head and neck cancer were selected and were randomly placed in two arms. One was intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) arm I, which included the initial plans with which the patients were treated where the pseudo-OAR was not delineated and hence was not considered in the planning process. After giving treatment, the pseudo-OAR was delineated to see the dose dumped into the area outside the PTV. The other was IMRT arm II, where another virtual plan of the same patients of arm I was made wherein the delineation of the pseudo-OAR was done before planning and dose constraint prescribed. The pseudo-OAR consisted of anterior oral mucosa, part of mandible and maxilla, which was adjacent to the PTV in oropharynx and contralateral buccal mucosa patients. The dose constraint given to the pseudo-OAR was Dmean ≤30 Gy. Statistical significance was calculated by using a paired t-test. A p-value of <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results The dosimetric parameters of PTV were comparable in both the IMRT arms. The pre-specified objective was fulfilled with both the study arms. The dose homogeneity and conformity was also similar. The dosimetric parameters of other OARs were within the prescribed dose constraints. The Dmean value of the pseudo-OAR in arm I was 31.28 Gy ± 3.55 Gy and 7.87 Gy ± 9.11 Gy in arm II and the p-value was significant (p=0.001), whereas the Dmax in arm I was 61.82 Gy ± 5.91 Gy and 61.23 Gy ± 5.54 Gy in arm II (p=0.6). The dose to the pseudo-OAR in IMRT arm II was reduced drastically by 75%, which was statistically significant. Conclusion The delineation of oral mucosa as a pseudo-OAR should routinely be done. The dose constraints need to be optimized by clinical studies, which might probably decrease the incidence and severity of oral mucositis.