Moreno Amy C, Wilke Christopher, Wang He, Tung Shi-Ming Samuel, Pollard Courtney, Garden Adam S, Morrison William H, Rosenthal David I, Fuller Clifton D, Gunn Gary B, Reddy Jay P, Shah Shalin J, Frank Steven J, Takiar Vinita, Phan Jack
Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2019 May 1;10:29-34. doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2019.04.002. eCollection 2019 Apr.
Minimizing radiation dose exposure to nearby organs is key to limiting clinical toxicities associated with radiotherapy. Several treatment modalities such as split- or whole-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SF-IMRT, WF-IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) are being used to treat tonsillar cancer patients with unilateral neck radiotherapy. Herein, we provide a modern dosimetric comparison of all three techniques.
Forty patients with tonsillar cancer treated with definitive, ipsilateral neck SF-IMRT were evaluated. Each patient was re-planned with WF-IMRT and VMAT techniques, and doses to selected organs-at-risk (OARs) including the larynx, esophagus, and brainstem were compared.
No significant differences in target coverage existed between plans; however, the heterogeneity index improved using WF-IMRT and VMAT relative to SF-IMRT. Compared to SF-IMRT, WF-IMRT and VMAT plans had significantly lower mean doses to the supraglottic larynx (31 Gy, 18.5 Gy, 17 Gy; p < 0.01), the MDACC-defined larynx (13.4 Gy, 10.5 Gy, 9.8 Gy; p < 0.01), and RTOG-defined larynx (15.8 Gy, 12.1 Gy, 11.1 Gy; p < 0.01), respectively. Mean esophageal dose was lowest with SF-IMRT over WF-IMRT and VMAT (5.9 Gy, 12.2 Gy, 11.1 Gy; p < 0.01) but only in the absence of lower neck disease. On average, VMAT plans had shorter treatment times and required less monitor units than both SF-IMRT and WF-IMRT.
In the setting of unilateral neck radiotherapy, WF-IMRT and VMAT plans can be optimized to significantly improve dose sparing of critical structures compared to SF-IMRT. VMAT offers additional advantages of shorter treatment times and fewer required monitor units.
将附近器官的辐射剂量暴露降至最低是限制放疗相关临床毒性的关键。几种治疗方式,如分割野或全野调强放疗(SF-IMRT、WF-IMRT)以及容积调强弧形放疗(VMAT),正被用于单侧颈部放疗的扁桃体癌患者。在此,我们对这三种技术进行了现代剂量学比较。
对40例接受根治性同侧颈部SF-IMRT治疗的扁桃体癌患者进行评估。为每位患者重新制定WF-IMRT和VMAT技术计划,并比较包括喉、食管和脑干在内的选定危及器官(OARs)的剂量。
各计划之间在靶区覆盖方面无显著差异;然而,相对于SF-IMRT,使用WF-IMRT和VMAT时不均匀性指数有所改善。与SF-IMRT相比,WF-IMRT和VMAT计划对上声门喉的平均剂量显著更低(分别为31 Gy、18.5 Gy、17 Gy;p < 0.01),对MDACC定义的喉的平均剂量(分别为13.4 Gy、10.5 Gy、9.8 Gy;p < 0.01),以及对RTOG定义的喉的平均剂量(分别为15.8 Gy、12.1 Gy、11.1 Gy;p < 0.01)。在无下颈部疾病的情况下,SF-IMRT的平均食管剂量低于WF-IMRT和VMAT(分别为5.9 Gy、12.2 Gy、11.1 Gy;p < 0.01)。平均而言,VMAT计划的治疗时间更短,所需监测单位比SF-IMRT和WF-IMRT都少。
在单侧颈部放疗的情况下,与SF-IMRT相比,WF-IMRT和VMAT计划可进行优化,以显著改善关键结构的剂量 sparing。VMAT还具有治疗时间更短和所需监测单位更少的额外优势。