PURPOSE: To compare step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (SAS-IMRT) and helical tomotherapy (Tomo) dosimetry plans for patients who have received adjuvant radiation therapy for retroperitoneal sarcomas (RSTS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective review was performed for seven patients who received either SAS-IMRT or Tomo as adjuvant radiation therapy for RSTS. In each case, a treatment plan of the other modality was generated so that SAS-IMRT and Tomo could be compared. RESULTS: The average percentage of clinical target volume (CTV) that received less than the prescription dose was 1.4% for Tomo compared to 3.8% for SAS-IMRT. Both SAS-IMRT and Tomo plans provided comparable and significant reductions in volume of small bowel receiving greater than 45 Gy compared to simple opposing standard radiation fields. For the ipsilateral kidney, Tomo significantly reduced the volume of kidney that received at least 15 Gy (average 22% for Tomo vs. 56% for SAS-IMRT). CONCLUSION: Both SAS-IMRT and Tomo can encompass the large CTV often required for patients with RSTS, although Tomo provides superior dose uniformity. Both SAS-IMRT and Tomo can minimize the volume of small bowel receiving greater than 45 Gy. Tomo was superior to SAS-IMRT in minimizing the volume of ipsilateral kidney irradiated to greater than 15 Gy when the CTV is adjacent to a kidney. Dose escalation and target margin expansion may thus become realistic possibilities.
PURPOSE: To compare step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (SAS-IMRT) and helical tomotherapy (Tomo) dosimetry plans for patients who have received adjuvant radiation therapy for retroperitoneal sarcomas (RSTS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective review was performed for seven patients who received either SAS-IMRT or Tomo as adjuvant radiation therapy for RSTS. In each case, a treatment plan of the other modality was generated so that SAS-IMRT and Tomo could be compared. RESULTS: The average percentage of clinical target volume (CTV) that received less than the prescription dose was 1.4% for Tomo compared to 3.8% for SAS-IMRT. Both SAS-IMRT and Tomo plans provided comparable and significant reductions in volume of small bowel receiving greater than 45 Gy compared to simple opposing standard radiation fields. For the ipsilateral kidney, Tomo significantly reduced the volume of kidney that received at least 15 Gy (average 22% for Tomo vs. 56% for SAS-IMRT). CONCLUSION: Both SAS-IMRT and Tomo can encompass the large CTV often required for patients with RSTS, although Tomo provides superior dose uniformity. Both SAS-IMRT and Tomo can minimize the volume of small bowel receiving greater than 45 Gy. Tomo was superior to SAS-IMRT in minimizing the volume of ipsilateral kidney irradiated to greater than 15 Gy when the CTV is adjacent to a kidney. Dose escalation and target margin expansion may thus become realistic possibilities.
Authors: P Mavroidis; C Shi; G A Plataniotis; M G Delichas; B Costa Ferreira; S Rodriguez; B K Lind; N Papanikolaou Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Kaitlyn J Kelly; Sam S Yoon; Deborah Kuk; Li-Xuan Qin; Katerina Dukleska; Kevin K Chang; Yen-Lin Chen; Thomas F Delaney; Murray F Brennan; Samuel Singer Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 12.969