PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of using tomotherapy to deliver whole brain radiotherapy with hippocampal avoidance, hypothesized to reduce the risk of memory function decline, and simultaneously integrated boost to brain metastases to improve intracranial tumor control. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients treated with radiosurgery and whole brain radiotherapy underwent repeat planning using tomotherapy with the original computed tomography scans and magnetic resonance imaging-computed tomography fusion-defined target and normal structure contours. The individually contoured hippocampus was used as a dose-limiting structure (<6 Gy); the whole brain dose was prescribed at 32.25 Gy to 95% in 15 fractions, and the simultaneous boost doses to individual brain metastases were 63 Gy to lesions >or=2.0 cm in the maximal diameter and 70.8 Gy to lesions <2.0 cm. The plans were generated with a field width (FW) of 2.5 cm and, in 5 patients, with a FW of 1.0 cm. The plans were compared regarding conformation number, prescription isodose/target volume ratio, target coverage, homogeneity index, and mean normalized total dose. RESULTS: A 1.0-cm FW compared with a 2.5-cm FW significantly improved the dose distribution. The mean conformation number improved from 0.55 +/- 0.16 to 0.60 +/- 0.13. Whole brain homogeneity improved by 32% (p <0.001). The mean normalized total dose to the hippocampus was 5.9 +/- 1.3 Gy(2) and 5.8 +/- 1.9 Gy(2) for 2.5- and 1.0-cm FW, respectively. The mean treatment delivery time for the 2.5- and 1.0-cm FW plans was 10.2 +/- 1.0 and 21.8 +/- 1.8 min, respectively. CONCLUSION: Composite tomotherapy plans achieved three objectives: homogeneous whole brain dose distribution equivalent to conventional whole brain radiotherapy; conformal hippocampal avoidance; and radiosurgically equivalent dose distributions to individual metastases.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of using tomotherapy to deliver whole brain radiotherapy with hippocampal avoidance, hypothesized to reduce the risk of memory function decline, and simultaneously integrated boost to brain metastases to improve intracranial tumor control. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients treated with radiosurgery and whole brain radiotherapy underwent repeat planning using tomotherapy with the original computed tomography scans and magnetic resonance imaging-computed tomography fusion-defined target and normal structure contours. The individually contoured hippocampus was used as a dose-limiting structure (<6 Gy); the whole brain dose was prescribed at 32.25 Gy to 95% in 15 fractions, and the simultaneous boost doses to individual brain metastases were 63 Gy to lesions >or=2.0 cm in the maximal diameter and 70.8 Gy to lesions <2.0 cm. The plans were generated with a field width (FW) of 2.5 cm and, in 5 patients, with a FW of 1.0 cm. The plans were compared regarding conformation number, prescription isodose/target volume ratio, target coverage, homogeneity index, and mean normalized total dose. RESULTS: A 1.0-cm FW compared with a 2.5-cm FW significantly improved the dose distribution. The mean conformation number improved from 0.55 +/- 0.16 to 0.60 +/- 0.13. Whole brain homogeneity improved by 32% (p <0.001). The mean normalized total dose to the hippocampus was 5.9 +/- 1.3 Gy(2) and 5.8 +/- 1.9 Gy(2) for 2.5- and 1.0-cm FW, respectively. The mean treatment delivery time for the 2.5- and 1.0-cm FW plans was 10.2 +/- 1.0 and 21.8 +/- 1.8 min, respectively. CONCLUSION: Composite tomotherapy plans achieved three objectives: homogeneous whole brain dose distribution equivalent to conventional whole brain radiotherapy; conformal hippocampal avoidance; and radiosurgically equivalent dose distributions to individual metastases.
Authors: J L Nakamura; L J Verhey; V Smith; P L Petti; K R Lamborn; D A Larson; W M Wara; M W McDermott; P K Sneed Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David W Andrews; Charles B Scott; Paul W Sperduto; Adam E Flanders; Laurie E Gaspar; Michael C Schell; Maria Werner-Wasik; William Demas; Janice Ryu; Jean-Paul Bahary; Luis Souhami; Marvin Rotman; Minesh P Mehta; Walter J Curran Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-05-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Amol Ghia; Wolfgang A Tomé; Sayana Thomas; George Cannon; Deepak Khuntia; John S Kuo; Minesh P Mehta Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-04-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Edward Shaw; Charles Scott; John Suh; Sidney Kadish; Baldassarre Stea; John Hackman; Andrew Pearlman; Kevin Murray; Laurie Gaspar; Minesh Mehta; Walter Curran; Michael Gerber Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Taofeek K Owonikoko; Jack Arbiser; Amelia Zelnak; Hui-Kuo G Shu; Hyunsuk Shim; Adam M Robin; Steven N Kalkanis; Timothy G Whitsett; Bodour Salhia; Nhan L Tran; Timothy Ryken; Michael K Moore; Kathleen M Egan; Jeffrey J Olson Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Vinai Gondi; Ranjini Tolakanahalli; Minesh P Mehta; Dinesh Tewatia; Howard Rowley; John S Kuo; Deepak Khuntia; Wolfgang A Tomé Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038