PURPOSE: To investigate whether intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) allows more mucosal sparing than standard three-field technique (3FT) radiotherapy for early oropharyngeal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Whole-field IMRT plans were generated for 5 patients with early-stage oropharyngeal cancer according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0022 (66 Gy/30 fractions/6 weeks) guidelines with and without a dose objective on the portion of mucosa not overlapping any PTV. 3FT plans were also generated for the same 5 patients with two fractionation schedules: conventional fractionation (CF) to 70 Gy/35 fractions/7 weeks and concomitant boost (CB) to 72 Gy/40 fractions/6 weeks. Cumulative dose volume histograms (DVHs) of the overall mucosal volume (as per in-house definition) from all trials were compared after transformation into the linear quadratic equivalent dose at 2 Gy per fraction with a time factor correction. RESULTS: Compared with IMRT without dose objective on the mucosa, a 30-Gy maximum dose objective on the mucosa allows approximately 20% and approximately 12% mean absolute reduction in the percentage of mucosa volume exposed to a dose equivalent to 30 Gy (p < 0.01) and 70 Gy (p < 0.01) at 2 Gy in 3 and 7 weeks, respectively, without detrimental effect on the coverage of other regions of interest. Without mucosal dose objective, IMRT is associated with a larger amount of mucosa exposed to clinically relevant doses compared with both concomitant boost and conventional fractionation; however, if a dose objective is placed, the reverse is true, with up to approximately 30% reduction in the volume of the mucosa in the high-dose region compared with both concomitant boost and conventional fractionation (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy can be potentially provide more mucosal sparing than traditional approaches.
PURPOSE: To investigate whether intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) allows more mucosal sparing than standard three-field technique (3FT) radiotherapy for early oropharyngeal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Whole-field IMRT plans were generated for 5 patients with early-stage oropharyngeal cancer according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0022 (66 Gy/30 fractions/6 weeks) guidelines with and without a dose objective on the portion of mucosa not overlapping any PTV. 3FT plans were also generated for the same 5 patients with two fractionation schedules: conventional fractionation (CF) to 70 Gy/35 fractions/7 weeks and concomitant boost (CB) to 72 Gy/40 fractions/6 weeks. Cumulative dose volume histograms (DVHs) of the overall mucosal volume (as per in-house definition) from all trials were compared after transformation into the linear quadratic equivalent dose at 2 Gy per fraction with a time factor correction. RESULTS: Compared with IMRT without dose objective on the mucosa, a 30-Gy maximum dose objective on the mucosa allows approximately 20% and approximately 12% mean absolute reduction in the percentage of mucosa volume exposed to a dose equivalent to 30 Gy (p < 0.01) and 70 Gy (p < 0.01) at 2 Gy in 3 and 7 weeks, respectively, without detrimental effect on the coverage of other regions of interest. Without mucosal dose objective, IMRT is associated with a larger amount of mucosa exposed to clinically relevant doses compared with both concomitant boost and conventional fractionation; however, if a dose objective is placed, the reverse is true, with up to approximately 30% reduction in the volume of the mucosa in the high-dose region compared with both concomitant boost and conventional fractionation (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy can be potentially provide more mucosal sparing than traditional approaches.
Authors: J A Dean; L C Welsh; K H Wong; A Aleksic; E Dunne; M R Islam; A Patel; P Patel; I Petkar; I Phillips; J Sham; U Schick; K L Newbold; S A Bhide; K J Harrington; C M Nutting; S L Gulliford Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Tim J Kruser; Stephanie R Rice; Kevin P Cleary; Heather M Geye; Wolfgang A Tome; Paul M Harari; Kevin R Kozak Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-03-26
Authors: F Alongi; M Bignardi; I Garassino; S Pentimalli; R Cavina; P Mancosu; G Reggiori; A Poletti; D Ferrari; P Foa; A Bigoni; A Dragonetti; P Salvatori; O Spahiu; A Fogliata; L Cozzi; A Santoro; M Scorsetti Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2011-12-24 Impact factor: 3.621