Literature DB >> 12074463

Treatment of pancreatic cancer tumors with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using the volume at risk approach (VARA): employing dose-volume histogram (DVH) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) to evaluate small bowel toxicity.

Jerome C Landry1, Gary Y Yang, Joseph Y Ting, Charles A Staley, William Torres, Natia Esiashvili, Lawrence W Davis.   

Abstract

The emergent use of a combined modality approach (chemotherapy and radiation) in pancreatic cancer is associated with increased gastrointestinal toxicity. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has the potential to deliver adequate dose to the tumor volume while decreasing the dose to critical structures such as the small bowel. We evaluated the influence of IMRT with inverse treatment planning on the dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of normal tissue compared to standard 3-dimensional conformal radiation treatment (3D-CRT) in patients with pancreatic cancer. Between July 1999 and May 2001, 10 randomly selected patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head were planned simultaneously with 3D-CRT and inverse-planned IMRT using the volume at risk approach (VaRA) and compared for various dosimetric parameters. DVH and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were calculated using IMRT and 3D-CRT plans. The aim of the treatment plan was to deliver 61.2 Gy to the gross tumor volume (GTV) and 45 Gy to the clinical treatment volume (CTV) while maintaining critical normal tissues to below specified tolerances. IMRT plans were more conformal than 3D-CRT plans. The average dose delivered to one third of the small bowel was lower with the IMRT plan compared to 3D-CRT. The IMRT plan resulted in one third of the small bowel receiving 30.2+/-12.9 Gy vs. 38.5+/-14.2 Gy with 3D-CRT (p = 0.006). The median volume of small bowel that received greater than either 50 or 60 Gy was reduced with IMRT. The median volume of small bowel exceeding 50 Gy was 19.2+/-11.2% (range 3% to 45%) compared to 31.4+/-21.3 (range 7% to 70%) for 3D-CRT (p = 0.048). The median volume of small bowel that received greater than 60 Gy was 12.5+/-4.8% for IMRT compared to 19.8+/-18.6% for 3D-CRT (p = 0.034). The VaRA approach employing IMRT techniques resulted in a lower dose per volume of small bowel that exceeded 60 Gy. We used the Lyman-Kutcher models to compare the probability of small bowel injury employing IMRT compared to 3D-CRT. The BIOPLAN model predicted a small bowel complication probability of 9.3+/-6% with IMRT compared to 24.4+/-18.9% with 3D-CRT delivery of dose (p = 0.021). IMRT with an inverse treatment plan has the potential to significantly improve radiation therapy of pancreatic cancers by reducing normal tissue dose, and simultaneously allow escalation of dose to further enhance locoregional control.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12074463     DOI: 10.1016/s0958-3947(02)00094-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Dosim        ISSN: 1873-4022            Impact factor:   1.482


  22 in total

Review 1.  Radiation medicine innovations for the new millenium.

Authors:  Dwight E Heron; Karen D Godette; Ray A Wynn; V Elayne Arterbery; Oscar A Streeter; Mack Roach; Joseph R Simpson; Melissa Blough; Charles R Thomas
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 1.798

Review 2.  The role of radiotherapy in locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma.

Authors:  Ruchika Gutt; Stanley L Liauw; Ralph R Weichselbaum
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2010-07-13       Impact factor: 46.802

Review 3.  Adjuvant radiotherapy for resected pancreatic cancer: a lack of benefit or a lack of adequate trials?

Authors:  Ruchika Gutt; Stanley L Liauw; Ralph R Weichselbaum
Journal:  Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2008-11-25

4.  Stereotactic body radiation therapy planning with duodenal sparing using volumetric-modulated arc therapy vs intensity-modulated radiation therapy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer: a dosimetric analysis.

Authors:  Rachit Kumar; Aaron T Wild; Mark A Ziegler; Ted K Hooker; Samson D Dah; Phuoc T Tran; Jun Kang; Koren Smith; Jing Zeng; Timothy M Pawlik; Erik Tryggestad; Eric Ford; Joseph M Herman
Journal:  Med Dosim       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 1.482

5.  Volumetric modulated arc therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Wietse Eppinga; Frank Lagerwaard; Wilko Verbakel; Ben Slotman; Suresh Senan
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2010-06-24       Impact factor: 3.621

Review 6.  Postoperative radiotherapy in periampullary cancers: a brief review.

Authors:  Amit Bahl; Tapesh Bhattacharyya; Rakesh Kapoor; Oinam A Singh; Tomar Parsee; Suresh C Sharma
Journal:  J Gastrointest Cancer       Date:  2013-03

7.  Predictors of Hematologic Toxicity and Chemotherapy Dose Intensity in Patients Undergoing Chemoradiation for Pancreatic Cancer.

Authors:  Talha Shaikh; Lora S Wang; Brian Egleston; Meher Burki; John P Hoffman; Steven J Cohen; Joshua E Meyer
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.339

8.  Treatment of locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer: a 10-year experience.

Authors:  Nadia K Malik; Kilian Salerno May; Rameela Chandrasekhar; Wen Wee; Leayn Flaherty; Renuka Iyer; John Gibbs; Boris Kuvshinoff; Gregory Wilding; Graham Warren; Gary Y Yang
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2012-12

9.  Beam angle selection for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment of unresectable pancreatic cancer: are noncoplanar beam angles necessary?

Authors:  D S Chang; G K Bartlett; I J Das; H R Cardenes
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2013-01-29       Impact factor: 3.405

10.  Image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy for pancreatic carcinoma.

Authors:  Martin Fuss; Adrian Wong; Clifton D Fuller; Bill J Salter; Cristina Fuss; Charles R Thomas
Journal:  Gastrointest Cancer Res       Date:  2007-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.