Wieland Petra, Dobler Barbara, Mai Sabine, Hermann Brigitte, Tiefenbacher Uta, Steil Volker, Wenz Frederik, Lohr Frank
Department of Radiation Oncology, Mannheim Medical Center, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer Ufer 1-3, 68167 Mannheim, Germany.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Jul 15;59(4):1236-44. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.02.051.
Data from the randomized Intergroup Trial 116 suggest effectiveness of adjuvant radiochemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Late toxicity, however, especially with respect to the kidneys, may pose significant longtime problems. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) may reduce toxicity to organs at risk. To evaluate the relative merits of different IMRT approaches, we performed a plan comparison between a step-and-shoot class solution and an AP-PA setup, a conventional box technique and the Peacock tomotherapy approach.
Computed tomographies and structure data from 15 patients who had been treated postoperatively for advanced (T3/T4/N+) gastric cancer at our department formed the basis of our plan comparison study. For each patient data set, 5 plans or plan combinations (conventional 3D plan, AP-PA plan, step-and-shoot IMRT, tomotherapy with 1-cm or 2-cm collimation) were chosen, and evaluation was performed for a total dose of 45 Gy delivered as the median dose to the target volume for each plan or plan combination.
Median kidney dose generated from the IMRT plans is reduced individually by >50% for the kidney with the highest exposure (usually the left kidney) from 20 to 30 Gy with conventional 3D planning down to values between 8 and 10 Gy for IMRT. On average, median dose to the right kidney is the same for the conventional box technique and IMRT (between 8 and 10 Gy) but lower for the AP-PA technique. In 3 patients, kidney dose might have been ablative for both kidneys with both the AP-PA technique and the box technique, whereas it was acceptable with IMRT. Median dose to the liver was subcritical with all modalities but lowest with AP-PA fields. Differences between step-and-shoot IMRT and tomotherapy plans are small when compared to the differences between IMRT plans and conventional conformal 3D plans. For some patients, however, their body and target diameters obviate treatment with tomotherapy. Treatment time for the step-and-shoot approach and for tomotherapy with 2-cm collimation can be kept <20 min.
For postoperative radiotherapy of advanced gastric cancer, step-and-shoot IMRT as well as tomotherapy can deliver efficient doses to target volumes while delivering dose to the kidneys in a fashion that is different from a conventional technique and is clearly advantageous in a small number of patients. An advantage for the majority of patients is likely with the normal tissue complication probability data presented in this series, but, given the uncertainty of the reaction of the kidney to inhomogeneous dose distributions, cannot be considered unequivocal at the moment. Different technical limitations apply to the different IMRT techniques. The choice of approach is therefore determined by departmental circumstances.
随机分组试验116的数据表明,辅助放化疗对晚期胃癌患者有效。然而,晚期毒性,尤其是对肾脏的毒性,可能会带来严重的长期问题。调强放疗(IMRT)可能会降低对危及器官的毒性。为了评估不同IMRT方法的相对优点,我们对步进式和AP-PA设置、传统盒式技术和孔雀体层放疗方法进行了计划比较。
来自我们科室15例接受晚期(T3/T4/N+)胃癌术后治疗患者的计算机断层扫描和结构数据构成了我们计划比较研究的基础。对于每个患者数据集,选择5种计划或计划组合(传统3D计划、AP-PA计划、步进式IMRT、1厘米或2厘米准直的体层放疗),并对每个计划或计划组合向靶体积输送的45 Gy总剂量作为中位剂量进行评估。
IMRT计划产生的肾脏中位剂量,对于暴露最高的肾脏(通常是左肾),通过传统3D计划从20至30 Gy分别降低>50%,降至IMRT的8至10 Gy之间。平均而言,传统盒式技术和IMRT对右肾的中位剂量相同(在8至10 Gy之间),但AP-PA技术较低。在3例患者中,AP-PA技术和盒式技术对双侧肾脏的剂量可能是消融性的,而IMRT则是可接受的。所有方式对肝脏的中位剂量均低于临界值,但AP-PA野最低。与IMRT计划和传统适形3D计划之间的差异相比,步进式IMRT和体层放疗计划之间的差异较小。然而,对于一些患者,他们的身体和靶直径使得无法采用体层放疗进行治疗。步进式方法和2厘米准直的体层放疗的治疗时间可保持<20分钟。
对于晚期胃癌术后放疗,步进式IMRT以及体层放疗可以向靶体积输送有效剂量,同时以不同于传统技术的方式向肾脏输送剂量,并且在少数患者中明显具有优势。根据本系列中给出的正常组织并发症概率数据,对大多数患者可能具有优势,但鉴于肾脏对非均匀剂量分布反应的不确定性,目前不能认为是明确无疑的。不同的IMRT技术存在不同的技术限制。因此,方法的选择取决于科室情况。