PURPOSE: To quantify the differences between planned and delivered parotid gland and target doses, and to assess the benefits of daily bone alignment for head and neck cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eleven head and neck cancer patients received two CT scans per week with an in-room CT scanner over the course of their radiotherapy. The clinical IMRT plans, designed with 3-mm to 4-mm planning margins, were recalculated on the repeat CT images. The plans were aligned using the actual treatment isocenter marked with radiopaque markers (BB) and bone alignment to the cervical vertebrae to simulate image-guided setup. In-house deformable image registration software was used to map daily dose distributions to the original treatment plan and to calculate a cumulative delivered dose distribution for each patient. RESULTS: Using conventional BB alignment led to increases in the parotid gland mean dose above the planned dose by 5 to 7 Gy in 45% of the patients (median, 3.0 Gy ipsilateral, p = 0.026; median, 1.0 Gy contralateral, p = 0.016). Use of bone alignment led to reductions relative to BB alignment in 91% of patients (median, 2 Gy; range, 0.3-8.3 Gy; 15 of 22 parotids improved). However, the parotid dose from bone alignment was still greater than planned (median, 1.0 Gy, p = 0.007). Neither approach affected tumor dose coverage. CONCLUSIONS: With conventional BB alignment, the parotid gland mean dose was significantly increased above the planned mean dose. Using daily bone alignment reduced the parotid dose compared with BB alignment in almost all patients. A 3- to 4-mm planning margin was adequate for tumor dose coverage.
PURPOSE: To quantify the differences between planned and delivered parotid gland and target doses, and to assess the benefits of daily bone alignment for head and neck cancerpatients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eleven head and neck cancerpatients received two CT scans per week with an in-room CT scanner over the course of their radiotherapy. The clinical IMRT plans, designed with 3-mm to 4-mm planning margins, were recalculated on the repeat CT images. The plans were aligned using the actual treatment isocenter marked with radiopaque markers (BB) and bone alignment to the cervical vertebrae to simulate image-guided setup. In-house deformable image registration software was used to map daily dose distributions to the original treatment plan and to calculate a cumulative delivered dose distribution for each patient. RESULTS: Using conventional BB alignment led to increases in the parotid gland mean dose above the planned dose by 5 to 7 Gy in 45% of the patients (median, 3.0 Gy ipsilateral, p = 0.026; median, 1.0 Gy contralateral, p = 0.016). Use of bone alignment led to reductions relative to BB alignment in 91% of patients (median, 2 Gy; range, 0.3-8.3 Gy; 15 of 22 parotids improved). However, the parotid dose from bone alignment was still greater than planned (median, 1.0 Gy, p = 0.007). Neither approach affected tumor dose coverage. CONCLUSIONS: With conventional BB alignment, the parotid gland mean dose was significantly increased above the planned mean dose. Using daily bone alignment reduced the parotid dose compared with BB alignment in almost all patients. A 3- to 4-mm planning margin was adequate for tumor dose coverage.
Authors: Lifei Zhang; Adam S Garden; Justin Lo; K Kian Ang; Anesa Ahamad; William H Morrison; David I Rosenthal; Mark S Chambers; X Ronald Zhu; Radhe Mohan; Lei Dong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: K S Chao; J O Deasy; J Markman; J Haynie; C A Perez; J A Purdy; D A Low Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M A Hunt; G J Kutcher; C Burman; D Fass; L Harrison; S Leibel; Z Fuks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1993-09-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Laura Marucci; Andrzej Niemierko; Norbert J Liebsch; Fethiya Aboubaker; Mitchell C C Liu; J E Munzenrider Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jerry L Barker; Adam S Garden; K Kian Ang; Jennifer C O'Daniel; He Wang; Laurence E Court; William H Morrison; David I Rosenthal; K S Clifford Chao; Susan L Tucker; Radhe Mohan; Lei Dong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David A Jaffray; Patricia E Lindsay; Kristy K Brock; Joseph O Deasy; W A Tomé Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Terence T Sio; Huei-Kai Lin; Qiuling Shi; G Brandon Gunn; Charles S Cleeland; J Jack Lee; Mike Hernandez; Pierre Blanchard; Nikhil G Thaker; Jack Phan; David I Rosenthal; Adam S Garden; William H Morrison; C David Fuller; Tito R Mendoza; Radhe Mohan; Xin Shelley Wang; Steven J Frank Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 7.038