PURPOSE: To report a new technique for the spinal component of craniospinal irradiation (CSI) in the supine position, to describe a verification procedure for this method, and to compare this technique with conventional plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twelve patients were treated between 1998 and 2006 with CSI using a novel technique. Sixteen children were treated with a conventional field arrangement. All patients were followed for outcomes and toxicity. CSI was delivered using a posteroanterior (PA) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) spinal field matched to conventional, opposed lateral cranial fields. Treatment plans were generated for each patient using the IMRT technique and a standard PA field technique. The resulting dosimetry was compared to determine target homogeneity, maximum dose to normal tissues, and total monitor units delivered. RESULTS: Evaluation of the spinal IMRT technique compared with a standard PA technique reveals a 7% reduction in the target volume receiving > or =110% of the prescribed dose and an 8% increase in the target volume receiving > or =95% of the prescribed dose. Although target homogeneity was improved, the maximum dose delivered in the paraspinal muscles was increased by approximately 8.5% with spinal IMRT compared to the PA technique. Follow-up evaluations revealed no unexpected toxicity associated with the IMRT technique. CONCLUSIONS: A new technique of spine IMRT is presented in combination with a quality assurance method. This method improves target dose uniformity compared to the conventional CSI technique. Longer follow-up will be required to determine any benefit with regard to toxicity and disease control.
PURPOSE: To report a new technique for the spinal component of craniospinal irradiation (CSI) in the supine position, to describe a verification procedure for this method, and to compare this technique with conventional plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twelve patients were treated between 1998 and 2006 with CSI using a novel technique. Sixteen children were treated with a conventional field arrangement. All patients were followed for outcomes and toxicity. CSI was delivered using a posteroanterior (PA) intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) spinal field matched to conventional, opposed lateral cranial fields. Treatment plans were generated for each patient using the IMRT technique and a standard PA field technique. The resulting dosimetry was compared to determine target homogeneity, maximum dose to normal tissues, and total monitor units delivered. RESULTS: Evaluation of the spinal IMRT technique compared with a standard PA technique reveals a 7% reduction in the target volume receiving > or =110% of the prescribed dose and an 8% increase in the target volume receiving > or =95% of the prescribed dose. Although target homogeneity was improved, the maximum dose delivered in the paraspinal muscles was increased by approximately 8.5% with spinal IMRT compared to the PA technique. Follow-up evaluations revealed no unexpected toxicity associated with the IMRT technique. CONCLUSIONS: A new technique of spine IMRT is presented in combination with a quality assurance method. This method improves target dose uniformity compared to the conventional CSI technique. Longer follow-up will be required to determine any benefit with regard to toxicity and disease control.
Authors: Catherine T Lee; Stephen D Bilton; Robin M Famiglietti; Beverly A Riley; Anita Mahajan; Eric L Chang; Moshe H Maor; Shiao Y Woo; James D Cox; Alfred R Smith Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J Grill; V K Renaux; C Bulteau; D Viguier; C Levy-Piebois; C Sainte-Rose; G Dellatolas; M A Raquin; I Jambaqué; C Kalifa Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Grace E Yuh; Lilia N Loredo; Leslie T Yonemoto; David A Bush; Kambiz Shahnazi; William Preston; James M Slater; Jerry D Slater Journal: Cancer J Date: 2004 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.360
Authors: Marcia Urie; T J FitzGerald; David Followill; Fran Laurie; Robert Marcus; Jeff Michalski Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Marzanna Chojnacka; Anna Skowrońska-Gardas; Marzena Morawska-Kaczyńska; Anna Zygmuntowicz-Piętka; Katarzyna Pędziwiatr; Anna Semaniak Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2010-02-18
Authors: Bree R Eaton; Grace W Fong; Lisa M Ingerski; Margaret B Pulsifer; Subir Goyal; Chao Zhang; Elizabeth A Weyman; Natia Esiashvili; James L Klosky; Tobey J MacDonald; David H Ebb; Shannon M MacDonald; Nancy J Tarbell; Torunn I Yock Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Maurice C Cox; Johannes M Kusters; Corrie E Gidding; Jolanda H Schieving; Erik J van Lindert; Johannes H Kaanders; Geert O Janssens Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-11-24 Impact factor: 3.481