PURPOSE: A planning study to compare helical tomotherapy (HT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for the treatment of anal canal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen (8 males and 8 females) patients with anal cancer previously treated radically were identified. HT and IMRT plans were generated and dosimetric comparisons of the plans were performed. The planning goals were to deliver 54Gy to the tumor (PTV(54Gy)) and 48Gy to the nodes at risk (PTV(Node)) in 30 fractions. RESULTS: PTVs: HT plans were more homogeneous for both men and women. Male patients: HT vs. IMRT: D(max): 55.87+/-0.58 vs. 59.17+/-3.24 (p=0.036); D(min): 52.91+/-0.36 vs. 44.09+/-6.84 (p=0.012); female patients: HT vs. IMRT: D(max): 56.14+/-0.71 vs. 59.47+/-0.81 (p=0.012); D(min): 52.36+/-0.87 vs. 50.97+/-1.42 (p=0.028). OARs: In general, HT plans delivered a lower dose to the peritoneal cavity, external genitalia and the bladder and IMRT plans resulted in greater sparing of the pelvic bones (iliac crest/femur) for both men and women. Iliac crest/femur: the difference was significant only for the mean V10Gy of iliac crest in women (p< or =0.012). External genitalia: HT plans achieved better sparing in women compared to men (p< or =0.046). For men, the mean doses were 18.96+/-3.17 and 15.72+/-3.21 for the HT and IMRT plan, respectively (p< or =0.017). Skin: both techniques achieved comparable sparing of the non-target skin (p=NS). CONCLUSIONS: HT and IMRT techniques achieved comparable target dose coverage and organ sparing, whereas HT plans were more homogeneous for both men and women. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: A planning study to compare helical tomotherapy (HT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for the treatment of anal canal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen (8 males and 8 females) patients with anal cancer previously treated radically were identified. HT and IMRT plans were generated and dosimetric comparisons of the plans were performed. The planning goals were to deliver 54Gy to the tumor (PTV(54Gy)) and 48Gy to the nodes at risk (PTV(Node)) in 30 fractions. RESULTS: PTVs: HT plans were more homogeneous for both men and women. Male patients: HT vs. IMRT: D(max): 55.87+/-0.58 vs. 59.17+/-3.24 (p=0.036); D(min): 52.91+/-0.36 vs. 44.09+/-6.84 (p=0.012); female patients: HT vs. IMRT: D(max): 56.14+/-0.71 vs. 59.47+/-0.81 (p=0.012); D(min): 52.36+/-0.87 vs. 50.97+/-1.42 (p=0.028). OARs: In general, HT plans delivered a lower dose to the peritoneal cavity, external genitalia and the bladder and IMRT plans resulted in greater sparing of the pelvic bones (iliac crest/femur) for both men and women. Iliac crest/femur: the difference was significant only for the mean V10Gy of iliac crest in women (p< or =0.012). External genitalia: HT plans achieved better sparing in women compared to men (p< or =0.046). For men, the mean doses were 18.96+/-3.17 and 15.72+/-3.21 for the HT and IMRT plan, respectively (p< or =0.017). Skin: both techniques achieved comparable sparing of the non-target skin (p=NS). CONCLUSIONS: HT and IMRT techniques achieved comparable target dose coverage and organ sparing, whereas HT plans were more homogeneous for both men and women. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Ted C Ling; Jerry M Slater; Rachel Mifflin; Prashanth Nookala; Roger Grove; Anh M Ly; Baldev Patyal; Jerry D Slater; Gary Y Yang Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2015-04
Authors: V Vendrely; B Henriques de Figueiredo; E Rio; J Benech; S Belhomme; A Lisbona; E Frison; A Doussau; N Nomikossoff; M A Mahé; G Kantor; J P Maire Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Elizabeth Brown; Alison Cray; Annette Haworth; Sarat Chander; Robert Lin; Brindha Subramanian; Michael Ng Journal: J Med Radiat Sci Date: 2015-02-12
Authors: Ted C Ling; Jerry M Slater; Prashanth Nookala; Rachel Mifflin; Roger Grove; Anh M Ly; Baldev Patyal; Jerry D Slater; Gary Y Yang Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 6.639