Literature DB >> 19944587

Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy and linac-IMRT treatment plans for head and neck cancer patients.

Xin Zhang1, Jose Penagaricano, Eduardo G Moros, Peter M Corry, Yulong Yan, Vaneerat Ratanatharathorn.   

Abstract

The rapid development and clinical implementation of external beam radiation treatment technologies continues. The existence of various commercially available technologies for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has stimulated interest in exploring the differential potential advantage one may have compared with another. Two such technologies, Hi-Art Helical Tomotherapy (HT) and conventional medical linear accelerator-based IMRT (LIMRT) have been shown to be particularly suitable for the treatment of head and neck cancers. In this study, 23 patients who were diagnosed with stages 3 or 4 head and neck cancers, without evidence of distance metastatic disease, were treated in our clinic. Treatment plans were developed for all patients simultaneously on the HT planning station and on the Pinnacle treatment planning system for step-and-shoot IMRT. Patients were treated only on the HT unit, with the LIMRT plan serving as a backup in case the HT system might not be available. All plans were approved for clinical use by a physician. The prescription was that patients receive at least 95% of the planning target volume (PTV), which is 66 Gy at 2.2 Gy per fraction. Several dosimetric parameters were computed: PTV dose coverage; PTV volume conformity index; the normalized total dose (NTD), where doses were converted to 2 Gy per fraction to organs at risk (OAR); and PTV dose homogeneity. Both planning systems satisfied our clinic's PTV prescription requirements. The results suggest that HT plans had, in general, slightly better dosimetric characteristics, especially regarding PTV dose homogeneity and normal tissue sparing. However, for both techniques, doses to OAR were well below the currently accepted normal tissue tolerances. Consequently, factors other than the dosimetric parameters studied here may have to be considered when making a choice between IMRT techniques.
Copyright © 2010. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19944587     DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2009.08.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Dosim        ISSN: 1873-4022            Impact factor:   1.482


  5 in total

1.  Effectiveness of tomotherapy vs linear accelerator image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized pharyngeal cancer treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy: a Taiwanese population-based propensity score-matched analysis.

Authors:  Yao-Ching Wang; Chia-Chin Li; Chun-Ru Chien
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Comparison of the effectiveness of different immobilization systems in different body regions using daily megavoltage CT in helical tomotherapy.

Authors:  K-F Cheng; V W C Wu
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Helical tomotherapy to LINAC plan conversion utilizing RayStation Fallback planning.

Authors:  Xin Zhang; Jose Penagaricano; Ganesh Narayanasamy; Peter Corry; TianXiao Liu; Maraboyina Sanjay; Nava Paudel; Steven Morrill
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 2.102

4.  Comparison of Dosimetric Gains Provided by Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy, Volume-Modulated Arc Therapy, and Helical Tomotherapy for High-Grade Glioma.

Authors:  Pei Liu; Gui Liu; Guihua Wang; Weibing Zhou; Yangqing Sun; Wen Chen; Qian Zeng; Jidong Hong; Qiongxuan Xie; Ludi Ou; Rui Wei
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-03-18       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Tomotherapy - a different way of dose delivery in radiotherapy.

Authors:  Tomasz Piotrowski; Małgorzata Skórska; Agata Jodda; Adam Ryczkowski; Joanna Kaźmierska; Krystyna Adamska; Aldona Karczewska-Dzionk; Małgorzata Zmijewska-Tomczak; Hanna Włodarczyk
Journal:  Contemp Oncol (Pozn)       Date:  2012-02-29
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.