PURPOSE: This study evaluates the difference in damage to middle ear function with CRT and IMRT techniques in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). We explore the isthmus of the Eustachian tube (ET) as the key anatomic site for the prevention of radiation-induced otitis media with effusion. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighty-two patients with NPC were divided into two groups: 40 patients treated with CRT and 42 patients treated with IMRT. The difference between dosage over the middle ear cavity and the isthmus of the ET was evaluated in both CRT group and IMRT group. All patients underwent hearing tests including pure tone audiometry and impedance audiometry before and after RT. RESULTS: The dosage difference to the middle ear cavity and isthmus between these two groups was statistically significant (p<0.05). The difference in hearing test results between these two groups was also statistically significant (p<0.05). If we limited the dose to the middle ear cavity under 34 Gy and the dose to the isthmus under 53 Gy with IMRT, we may decrease radiation-induced OME even with the larger 2.25 Gy fraction size. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT may have better protected the middle ear function compared with the CRT technique, even with larger fraction sizes than for the conventional CRT technique.
PURPOSE: This study evaluates the difference in damage to middle ear function with CRT and IMRT techniques in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). We explore the isthmus of the Eustachian tube (ET) as the key anatomic site for the prevention of radiation-induced otitis media with effusion. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighty-two patients with NPC were divided into two groups: 40 patients treated with CRT and 42 patients treated with IMRT. The difference between dosage over the middle ear cavity and the isthmus of the ET was evaluated in both CRT group and IMRT group. All patients underwent hearing tests including pure tone audiometry and impedance audiometry before and after RT. RESULTS: The dosage difference to the middle ear cavity and isthmus between these two groups was statistically significant (p<0.05). The difference in hearing test results between these two groups was also statistically significant (p<0.05). If we limited the dose to the middle ear cavity under 34 Gy and the dose to the isthmus under 53 Gy with IMRT, we may decrease radiation-induced OME even with the larger 2.25 Gy fraction size. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT may have better protected the middle ear function compared with the CRT technique, even with larger fraction sizes than for the conventional CRT technique.