PURPOSE: A comparative analysis of the three most advanced intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques currently commercially available was performed. Treatment plans made in rotational techniques (helical tomotherapy [HT] and RapidArc) were compared with sliding-window IMRT (dIMRT) on a conventional linear accelerator using different leaf thicknesses (2.5 mm, 5 mm, and 10 mm). The influence of the different planning techniques on the coverage of planning volume and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) was investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nine patients with localized prostate and nine patients with head and neck cancer were chosen for this study. Treatment planning was performed in Eclipse (Varian) and in Tomotherapy planning software. Treatment plans were compared according to target volume coverage and sparing OARs, as well as by conformity and homogeneity index. RESULTS: For both investigated tumor sites, the dosimetric effects of leaf widths between 2.5 mm, 5 mm and 10 mm were shown to be small in regard to target coverage. Tomotherapy plans had better target coverage (higher minimum dose). For prostate cancer, better sparing of bladder and rectum was achieved with RapidArc and dIMRT plans. For head and neck cancer, best sparing of parotid glands was achieved in HT plans. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in sparing of OARs between the dIMRT plans with different leaf widths neither for prostate cancer nor for head and neck cancer. CONCLUSION: For prostate and head and neck cases, all investigated IMRT techniques provide highly conformal treatment plans in terms of both target coverage and critical structure sparing.
PURPOSE: A comparative analysis of the three most advanced intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques currently commercially available was performed. Treatment plans made in rotational techniques (helical tomotherapy [HT] and RapidArc) were compared with sliding-window IMRT (dIMRT) on a conventional linear accelerator using different leaf thicknesses (2.5 mm, 5 mm, and 10 mm). The influence of the different planning techniques on the coverage of planning volume and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) was investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nine patients with localized prostate and nine patients with head and neck cancer were chosen for this study. Treatment planning was performed in Eclipse (Varian) and in Tomotherapy planning software. Treatment plans were compared according to target volume coverage and sparing OARs, as well as by conformity and homogeneity index. RESULTS: For both investigated tumor sites, the dosimetric effects of leaf widths between 2.5 mm, 5 mm and 10 mm were shown to be small in regard to target coverage. Tomotherapy plans had better target coverage (higher minimum dose). For prostate cancer, better sparing of bladder and rectum was achieved with RapidArc and dIMRT plans. For head and neck cancer, best sparing of parotid glands was achieved in HT plans. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in sparing of OARs between the dIMRT plans with different leaf widths neither for prostate cancer nor for head and neck cancer. CONCLUSION: For prostate and head and neck cases, all investigated IMRT techniques provide highly conformal treatment plans in terms of both target coverage and critical structure sparing.
Authors: Dietmar Georg; Bernhard Kroupa; Petra Georg; Peter Winkler; Joachim Bogner; Karin Dieckmann; Richard Pötter Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Hilke Vorwerk; Daniela Wagner; Björn Seitz; Hans Christiansen; Hendrik A Wolff; Clemens F Hess Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: L Cozzi; A Clivio; G Bauman; S Cora; G Nicolini; R Pellegrini; E Vanetti; S Yartsev; A Fogliata Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2006-08-04 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Yi-Jen Chen; An Liu; Chunhui Han; Peter T Tsai; Timothy E Schultheiss; Richard D Pezner; Nilesh Vora; Dean Lim; Stephen Shibata; Kemp H Kernstine; Jeffrey Y C Wong Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2007 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: Dirk Rades; Nina D Seibold; Maximilian P Gebhard; Frank Noack; Steven E Schild; Christoph Thorns Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2011-09-19 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: S Subramaniam; S Thirumalaiswamy; C Srinivas; G A Gandhi; M Kathirvel; K K Kumar; S Mallik; M Babaiah; Y Pawar; A Clivio; A Fogliata; P Mancosu; G Nicolini; E Vanetti; L Cozzi Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-03-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: G Z Gong; Y Yin; L G Xing; Y J Guo; T Liu; J Chen; J Lu; C Ma; T Sun; T Bai; G Zhang; R Wang Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Dirk Van Gestel; Dirk Verellen; Lien Van De Voorde; Bie de Ost; Geert De Kerf; Olivier Vanderveken; Carl Van Laer; Danielle Van den Weyngaert; Jan B Vermorken; Vincent Gregoire Journal: Oncologist Date: 2013-05-30