PURPOSE: To estimate the dosimetric impact of residual setup errors on parotid sparing in head-and-neck (H&N) intensity-modulated treatments and to evaluate the effect of employing an PRV (planning organ-at-risk volume) margin for the parotid gland. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten patients treated for H&N cancer were considered. A nine-beam intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) was planned for each patient. A second optimization was performed prescribing dose constraint to the PRV of the parotid gland. Systematic setup errors of 2 mm, 3 mm, and 5 mm were simulated. The dose-volume histograms of the shifted and reference plans were compared with regard to mean parotid gland dose (MPD), normal-tissue complication probability (NTCP), and coverage of the clinical target volume (V95% and equivalent uniform dose [EUD]); the sensitivity of parotid sparing on setup error was evaluated with a probability-based approach. RESULTS: MPD increased by 3.4%/mm and 3.0%/mm for displacements in the craniocaudal and lateral direction and by 0.7%/ mm for displacements in the anterior-posterior direction. The probability to irradiate the parotid with a mean dose > 30 Gy was > 50%, for setup errors in cranial and lateral direction and < 10% in the anterior-posterior direction. The addition of a PRV margin improved parotid sparing, with a relative reduction in NTCP of 14%. The PRV margin compensates for setup errors of 3 mm and 5 mm (MPD < or = 30 Gy in 87% and 60% of cases), without affecting clinical target volume coverage (V95% and EUD variations < 1% and < 1 Gy). CONCLUSION: The parotid gland is more sensitive to craniocaudal and lateral displacements. A setup error of 2 mm guarantees an MPD < or = 30 Gy in most cases, without adding a PRV margin. If greater displacements are expected/accepted, an adequate PRV margin could be used to meet the clinical parotid gland constraint of 30 Gy, without affecting target volume coverage.
PURPOSE: To estimate the dosimetric impact of residual setup errors on parotid sparing in head-and-neck (H&N) intensity-modulated treatments and to evaluate the effect of employing an PRV (planning organ-at-risk volume) margin for the parotid gland. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten patients treated for H&N cancer were considered. A nine-beam intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) was planned for each patient. A second optimization was performed prescribing dose constraint to the PRV of the parotid gland. Systematic setup errors of 2 mm, 3 mm, and 5 mm were simulated. The dose-volume histograms of the shifted and reference plans were compared with regard to mean parotid gland dose (MPD), normal-tissue complication probability (NTCP), and coverage of the clinical target volume (V95% and equivalent uniform dose [EUD]); the sensitivity of parotid sparing on setup error was evaluated with a probability-based approach. RESULTS: MPD increased by 3.4%/mm and 3.0%/mm for displacements in the craniocaudal and lateral direction and by 0.7%/ mm for displacements in the anterior-posterior direction. The probability to irradiate the parotid with a mean dose > 30 Gy was > 50%, for setup errors in cranial and lateral direction and < 10% in the anterior-posterior direction. The addition of a PRV margin improved parotid sparing, with a relative reduction in NTCP of 14%. The PRV margin compensates for setup errors of 3 mm and 5 mm (MPD < or = 30 Gy in 87% and 60% of cases), without affecting clinical target volume coverage (V95% and EUD variations < 1% and < 1 Gy). CONCLUSION: The parotid gland is more sensitive to craniocaudal and lateral displacements. A setup error of 2 mm guarantees an MPD < or = 30 Gy in most cases, without adding a PRV margin. If greater displacements are expected/accepted, an adequate PRV margin could be used to meet the clinical parotid gland constraint of 30 Gy, without affecting target volume coverage.
Authors: Vincent Grégoire; Peter Levendag; Kian K Ang; Jacques Bernier; Marijel Braaksma; Volker Budach; Cliff Chao; Emmanuel Coche; Jay S Cooper; Guy Cosnard; Avraham Eisbruch; Samy El-Sayed; Bahman Emami; Cai Grau; Marc Hamoir; Nancy Lee; Philippe Maingon; Karin Muller; Hervé Reychler Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Eleftheria Astreinidou; Arjan Bel; Cornelis P J Raaijmakers; Chris H J Terhaard; Jan J W Lagendijk Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: George X Ding; Dennis M Duggan; Charles W Coffey; Matthew Deeley; Dennis E Hallahan; Anthony Cmelak; Arnold Malcolm Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2007-08-20 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Markus Stock; Wolfgang Dörr; Carmen Stromberger; Ulrike Mock; Susanne Koizar; Richard Pötter; Dietmar Georg Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Nam P Nguyen; Shane P Krafft; Paul Vos; Vincent Vinh-Hung; Misty Ceizyk; Siyoung Jang; Anand Desai; Dave Abraham; Lars Ewell; Christopher Watchman; Russ Hamilton; Beng-Hoey Jo; Ulf Karlsson; Lexie Smith-Raymond Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2011-06-28 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Felix Zwicker; Henrik Hauswald; Simeon Nill; Bernhard Rhein; Christian Thieke; Falk Roeder; Carmen Timke; Angelika Zabel-du Bois; Jürgen Debus; Peter E Huber Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2010-05-21 Impact factor: 3.621