PURPOSE: We previously showed that 75% of radiation therapy (RT) failures in patients with unresectable esophageal cancer are in the gross tumor volume (GTV). We performed a planning study to evaluate if a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique could selectively deliver a boost dose of radiation to the GTV in patients with esophageal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Treatment plans were generated using four different approaches (two-dimensional conformal radiotherapy [2D-CRT] to 50.4 Gy, 2D-CRT to 64.8 Gy, intensity-modulated RT [IMRT] to 50.4 Gy, and SIB-IMRT to 64.8 Gy) and optimized for 10 patients with distal esophageal cancer. All plans were constructed to deliver the target dose in 28 fractions using heterogeneity corrections. Isodose distributions were evaluated for target coverage and normal tissue exposure. RESULTS: The 50.4 Gy IMRT plan was associated with significant reductions in mean cardiac, pulmonary, and hepatic doses relative to the 50.4 Gy 2D-CRT plan. The 64.8 Gy SIB-IMRT plan produced a 28% increase in GTV dose and comparable normal tissue doses as the 50.4 Gy IMRT plan; compared with the 50.4 Gy 2D-CRT plan, the 64.8 Gy SIB-IMRT produced significant dose reductions to all critical structures (heart, lung, liver, and spinal cord). CONCLUSIONS: The use of SIB-IMRT allowed us to selectively increase the dose to the GTV, the area at highest risk of failure, while simultaneously reducing the dose to the normal heart, lung, and liver. Clinical implications warrant systematic evaluation.
PURPOSE: We previously showed that 75% of radiation therapy (RT) failures in patients with unresectable esophageal cancer are in the gross tumor volume (GTV). We performed a planning study to evaluate if a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique could selectively deliver a boost dose of radiation to the GTV in patients with esophageal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Treatment plans were generated using four different approaches (two-dimensional conformal radiotherapy [2D-CRT] to 50.4 Gy, 2D-CRT to 64.8 Gy, intensity-modulated RT [IMRT] to 50.4 Gy, and SIB-IMRT to 64.8 Gy) and optimized for 10 patients with distal esophageal cancer. All plans were constructed to deliver the target dose in 28 fractions using heterogeneity corrections. Isodose distributions were evaluated for target coverage and normal tissue exposure. RESULTS: The 50.4 Gy IMRT plan was associated with significant reductions in mean cardiac, pulmonary, and hepatic doses relative to the 50.4 Gy 2D-CRT plan. The 64.8 Gy SIB-IMRT plan produced a 28% increase in GTV dose and comparable normal tissue doses as the 50.4 Gy IMRT plan; compared with the 50.4 Gy 2D-CRT plan, the 64.8 Gy SIB-IMRT produced significant dose reductions to all critical structures (heart, lung, liver, and spinal cord). CONCLUSIONS: The use of SIB-IMRT allowed us to selectively increase the dose to the GTV, the area at highest risk of failure, while simultaneously reducing the dose to the normal heart, lung, and liver. Clinical implications warrant systematic evaluation.
Authors: M K Martel; R K Ten Haken; M B Hazuka; M L Kessler; M Strawderman; A T Turrisi; T S Lawrence; B A Fraass; A S Lichter Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Feng-Ming Kong; Randall K Ten Haken; Matthew J Schipper; Molly A Sullivan; Ming Chen; Carlos Lopez; Gregory P Kalemkerian; James A Hayman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-10-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Bruce D Minsky; Thomas F Pajak; Robert J Ginsberg; Thomas M Pisansky; James Martenson; Ritsuko Komaki; Gordon Okawara; Seth A Rosenthal; David P Kelsen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alan Pollack; Gunar K Zagars; George Starkschall; John A Antolak; J Jack Lee; Eugene Huang; Andrew C von Eschenbach; Deborah A Kuban; Isaac Rosen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ylanga G van der Geld; Suresh Senan; John R van Sörnsen de Koste; Wilko F A R Verbakel; Ben J Slotman; Frank J Lagerwaard Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Xiaodong Zhang; Kuai-le Zhao; Thomas M Guerrero; Sean E McGuire; Brian Yaremko; Ritsuko Komaki; James D Cox; Zhouguang Hui; Yupeng Li; Wayne D Newhauser; Radhe Mohan; Zhongxing Liao Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ying Xiao; Lech Papiez; Rebecca Paulus; Robert Timmerman; William L Straube; Walter R Bosch; Jeff Michalski; James M Galvin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: James Welsh; Arya Amini; Anna Likhacheva; Jeremy Erasmus J; Daniel Gomez; Marta Davila; Reza J Mehran; Ritsuko Komaki; Zhongxing Liao; Wayne L Hofstetter; Jeffrey Lee H; Manoop S Bhutani; Jaffer A Ajani Journal: Curr Oncol Rep Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 5.075
Authors: Nils H Nicolay; Johanna Rademacher; Jan Oelmann-Avendano; Jürgen Debus; Peter E Huber; Katja Lindel Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Jérémie Calais; Bernard Dubray; Lamyaa Nkhali; Sebastien Thureau; Charles Lemarignier; Romain Modzelewski; Isabelle Gardin; Frederic Di Fiore; Pierre Michel; Pierre Vera Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-02-14 Impact factor: 9.236