PURPOSE: To compare intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivered by helical tomotherapy (HT) with conventional IMRT for primary chemoradiation in cervical cancer patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty cervical cancer patients undergoing primary chemoradiation received radiation with HT; 10 patients underwent pelvic irradiation (PEL) and 10 extended-field irradiation (EXT). For treatment planning, the simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) concept was applied. Tumor, pelvic, with or without para-aortic lymph nodes were defined as planning target volume A (PTV-A) with a prescribed dose of 1.8/50.4 Gy (28 fractions). The SIB dose for the parametrium (PTV-B), was 2.12/59.36 Gy. The lower target constraints were 95% of the prescribed dose in 95% of the target volume, and the upper dose constraint was 107%. The irradiated small-bowel volumes were kept as low as possible. For every HT plan, a conventional IMRT plan was calculated and compared with regard to dose-volume histogram, conformity index and conformity number, and homogeneity index. RESULTS: Both techniques allowed excellent target volume coverage and sufficient SB sparing. Conformity index and conformity number results for both PTV-A and PTV-B, homogeneity index for PTV-B, and SB sparing for V45, V50, Dmax, and D1% were significantly better with HT. SB sparing was significantly better for conventional IMRT at low doses (V10). CONCLUSIONS: Both HT and conventional IMRT provide optimal treatment of cervical cancer patients. The HT technique was significantly favored with regard to target conformity, homogeneity, and SB sparing. Randomized trials are needed to assess the oncological outcome, toxicity, and clinical relevance of these differences.
PURPOSE: To compare intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivered by helical tomotherapy (HT) with conventional IMRT for primary chemoradiation in cervical cancerpatients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty cervical cancerpatients undergoing primary chemoradiation received radiation with HT; 10 patients underwent pelvic irradiation (PEL) and 10 extended-field irradiation (EXT). For treatment planning, the simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) concept was applied. Tumor, pelvic, with or without para-aortic lymph nodes were defined as planning target volume A (PTV-A) with a prescribed dose of 1.8/50.4 Gy (28 fractions). The SIB dose for the parametrium (PTV-B), was 2.12/59.36 Gy. The lower target constraints were 95% of the prescribed dose in 95% of the target volume, and the upper dose constraint was 107%. The irradiated small-bowel volumes were kept as low as possible. For every HT plan, a conventional IMRT plan was calculated and compared with regard to dose-volume histogram, conformity index and conformity number, and homogeneity index. RESULTS: Both techniques allowed excellent target volume coverage and sufficient SB sparing. Conformity index and conformity number results for both PTV-A and PTV-B, homogeneity index for PTV-B, and SB sparing for V45, V50, Dmax, and D1% were significantly better with HT. SB sparing was significantly better for conventional IMRT at low doses (V10). CONCLUSIONS: Both HT and conventional IMRT provide optimal treatment of cervical cancerpatients. The HT technique was significantly favored with regard to target conformity, homogeneity, and SB sparing. Randomized trials are needed to assess the oncological outcome, toxicity, and clinical relevance of these differences.
Authors: Karen Lim; Beth Erickson; Ina M Jürgenliemk-Schulz; David Gaffney; Carien L Creutzberg; Akila Viswanathan; Lorraine Portelance; Sushil Beriwal; Aaron Wolfson; Walter Bosch; Jennifer De Los Santos; Catheryn Yashar; Anuja Jhingran; Mahesh Varia; Issam El Naqa; Bronwyn King; Anthony Fyles Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-07-02
Authors: F Heinzelmann; G Henke; M von Grafenstein; N Weidner; F Paulsen; A Staebler; S Brucker; M Bamberg; M Weinmann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 3.621