PURPOSE: A comparative treatment planning study has been performed between carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) and photon radiotherapy [three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)] to assess the potential improvements and limitations that could result for locally advanced, nonresectable head and neck tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven patients, originally treated with CIRT, were randomly selected for the comparative study. The evaluations analyzed using dose-volume histogram parameters, conformity index, inhomogeneity coefficient, and dose to the organs at risk (OARs). RESULTS: The mean conformity index was 1.46, 1.43, and 1.22 for 3D-CRT, IMRT, and CIRT, respectively. The mean inhomogeneity coefficient was 0.05, 0.07, and 0.02 for 3D-CRT, IMRT, and CIRT respectively. Photon plans resulted in greater volumes of normal tissues at 10% to 95% isodose levels compared with the corresponding carbon ion plans where the volumes increased by a factor of 1.2 to 2.7 for 3D-CRT and 1.2 to 2.0 for IMRT. CONCLUSION: CIRT has the potential to improve the target dose conformity, inhomogeneity coefficient, and OAR sparing when compared with 3D-CRT and IMRT. Compared with 3D-CRT, normal tissue exposure was reduced mainly in the mid-to low-isodose levels using IMRT. Additional improvement was obtained using CIRT.
PURPOSE: A comparative treatment planning study has been performed between carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) and photon radiotherapy [three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)] to assess the potential improvements and limitations that could result for locally advanced, nonresectable head and neck tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven patients, originally treated with CIRT, were randomly selected for the comparative study. The evaluations analyzed using dose-volume histogram parameters, conformity index, inhomogeneity coefficient, and dose to the organs at risk (OARs). RESULTS: The mean conformity index was 1.46, 1.43, and 1.22 for 3D-CRT, IMRT, and CIRT, respectively. The mean inhomogeneity coefficient was 0.05, 0.07, and 0.02 for 3D-CRT, IMRT, and CIRT respectively. Photon plans resulted in greater volumes of normal tissues at 10% to 95% isodose levels compared with the corresponding carbon ion plans where the volumes increased by a factor of 1.2 to 2.7 for 3D-CRT and 1.2 to 2.0 for IMRT. CONCLUSION: CIRT has the potential to improve the target dose conformity, inhomogeneity coefficient, and OAR sparing when compared with 3D-CRT and IMRT. Compared with 3D-CRT, normal tissue exposure was reduced mainly in the mid-to low-isodose levels using IMRT. Additional improvement was obtained using CIRT.
Authors: A J Lomax; T Bortfeld; G Goitein; J Debus; C Dykstra; P A Tercier; P A Coucke; R O Mirimanoff Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Damien C Weber; Alexei V Trofimov; Thomas F Delaney; Thomas Bortfeld Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: W H Roa; M B Hazuka; H M Sandler; M K Martel; A F Thornton; A T Turrisi; S Urba; G T Wolf; A S Lichter Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1994-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Katsura Kosaki; Swantje Ecker; Daniel Habermehl; Stefan Rieken; Oliver Jäkel; Klaus Herfarth; Jürgen Debus; Stephanie E Combs Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Zebin Liao; Zhe Liu; Zhenyu Gong; Xuguang Hu; Yuanyuan Chen; Kun Cao; Hong Zhang; Lu Gan; Juxiang Chen; Yanyong Yang; Jianming Cai Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 1.671
Authors: H Hauswald; A D Jensen; J Krauss; R Haselmann; K Lossner; S Hartmann; C Windemuth-Kieselbach; M W Münter; J Debus Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-09-21