INTRODUCTION: Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been incorporated at several institutions for early stage laryngeal cancer (T1/T2N0M0), but its utility is controversial. METHODS: In three representative patients, multiple plans were generated: 1) Conventional 2D planning, with the posterior border placed at either the anterior aspect ("tight" plan) or the mid-vertebral body ("loose" plan), 2) 3D planning, utilizing both 1.0 and 0.5 cm margins for the planning target volume (PTV), and 3) IMRT planning, utilizing the same margins as the 3D plans. A dosimetric comparison was performed for the target volume, spinal cord, arytenoids, and carotid arteries. The prescription dose was 6300 cGy (225 cGy fractions), and the 3D and IMRT plans were normalized to this dose. RESULTS: For PTV margins of 1.0 cm and 0.5 cm, the D95 of the 2D tight/loose plans were 3781/5437 cGy and 5372/5869 cGy, respectively (IMRT/3D plans both 6300 cGy). With a PTV margin of 1.0 cm, the mean carotid artery dose was 2483/5671/5777/4049 cGy in the 2D tight, 2D loose, 3D, and IMRT plans, respectively. When the PTV was reduced to 0.5 cm, the the mean carotid artery dose was 2483/5671/6466/2577 cGy to the above four plans, respectively. The arytenoid doses were similar between the four plans, and spinal cord doses were well below tolerance. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT provides a more ideal dose distribution compared to 2D treatment and 3D planning in regards to mean carotid dose. We therefore recommend IMRT in select cases when the treating physician is confident with the GTV.
INTRODUCTION: Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been incorporated at several institutions for early stage laryngeal cancer (T1/T2N0M0), but its utility is controversial. METHODS: In three representative patients, multiple plans were generated: 1) Conventional 2D planning, with the posterior border placed at either the anterior aspect ("tight" plan) or the mid-vertebral body ("loose" plan), 2) 3D planning, utilizing both 1.0 and 0.5 cm margins for the planning target volume (PTV), and 3) IMRT planning, utilizing the same margins as the 3D plans. A dosimetric comparison was performed for the target volume, spinal cord, arytenoids, and carotid arteries. The prescription dose was 6300 cGy (225 cGy fractions), and the 3D and IMRT plans were normalized to this dose. RESULTS: For PTV margins of 1.0 cm and 0.5 cm, the D95 of the 2D tight/loose plans were 3781/5437 cGy and 5372/5869 cGy, respectively (IMRT/3D plans both 6300 cGy). With a PTV margin of 1.0 cm, the mean carotid artery dose was 2483/5671/5777/4049 cGy in the 2D tight, 2D loose, 3D, and IMRT plans, respectively. When the PTV was reduced to 0.5 cm, the the mean carotid artery dose was 2483/5671/6466/2577 cGy to the above four plans, respectively. The arytenoid doses were similar between the four plans, and spinal cord doses were well below tolerance. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT provides a more ideal dose distribution compared to 2D treatment and 3D planning in regards to mean carotid dose. We therefore recommend IMRT in select cases when the treating physician is confident with the GTV.
Authors: Sue S Yom; William H Morrison; K Kian Ang; David I Rosenthal; George H Perkins; Pei-Fong Wong; Adam S Garden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-08-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Gert O De Meerleer; Valérie H Fonteyne; Luc Vakaet; Geert M Villeirs; Ludwig Denoyette; Antony Verbaeys; Nicolas Lummen; Wilfried J De Neve Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2007-01-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: David G Pfister; Scott A Laurie; Gregory S Weinstein; William M Mendenhall; David J Adelstein; K Kian Ang; Gary L Clayman; Susan G Fisher; Arlene A Forastiere; Louis B Harrison; Jean-Louis Lefebvre; Nancy Leupold; Marcy A List; Bernard O O'Malley; Snehal Patel; Marshall R Posner; Michael A Schwartz; Gregory T Wolf Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-07-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Allen M Chen; D Gregory Farwell; Quang Luu; Leon M Chen; Srinivasan Vijayakumar; James A Purdy Journal: Head Neck Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Paul D Brown; Robert L Foote; Mark P McLaughlin; Michele Y Halyard; Karla V Ballman; A Craig Collie; Robert C Miller; Kelly D Flemming; John W Hallett Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-09-19 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Lucille D A Dorresteijn; Arnoud C Kappelle; Willem Boogerd; Willem J Klokman; Alfons J M Balm; Ronald B Keus; Flora E van Leeuwen; Harry Bartelink Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Adam S Garden; Ken Forster; Pei-Fong Wong; William H Morrison; Naomi R Schechter; K Kian Ang Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Abdallah S R Mohamed; Blaine D Smith; Joshua B Smith; Parag Sevak; Jessica S Malek; Aasheesh Kanwar; Theodora Browne; G Brandon Gunn; Adam S Garden; Steven J Frank; William H Morrison; Jack Phan; Mark Zafereo; Heath Skinner; Stephen Y Lai; Katherine A Hutcheson; Jan S Lewin; Amy E Hessel; Apurva A Thekdi; Randal S Weber; Clifton D Fuller; David I Rosenthal Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Nadeem Riaz; Julian C Hong; Eric J Sherman; Luc Morris; Matthew Fury; Ian Ganly; Tony J C Wang; Weji Shi; Suzanne L Wolden; Andrew Jackson; Richard J Wong; Zhigang Zhang; Shyam D Rao; Nancy Y Lee Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-06-30 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Samuel Swisher-McClure; Nandita Mitra; Alexander Lin; Peter Ahn; Fei Wan; Bert O'Malley; Gregory S Weinstein; Justin E Bekelman Journal: Head Neck Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Karine A Al Feghali; Bassem Y Youssef; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Lara Hilal; Blaine D Smith; Ibrahim Abu-Gheida; Georges Farha; G Brandon Gunn; Jack Phan; Jan Lewin; Apurva Thekdi; William H Morrison; Adam S Garden; Clifton David Fuller; David I Rosenthal Journal: Head Neck Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 3.147