PURPOSE: To compare the dosimetric parameters of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in patients with intermediate-risk rhabdomyosarcoma and to analyze their effect on locoregional control and failure-free survival (FFS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study population consisted of 375 patients enrolled in the Children's Oncology Group protocol D9803 study, receiving IMRT or 3D-CRT. Dosimetric data were collected from 179 patients with an available composite plan. The chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used to compare the patient characteristics and radiotherapy parameters between the two groups. The interval-to-event outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to examine the effect of the treatment technique on FFS after adjusting for primary site and risk group. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 5.7 and 4.2 years for patients receiving 3D-CRT and IMRT, respectively. No differences in the 5-year failure of locoregional control (18% vs. 15%) or FFS (72% vs. 76%) rates were noted between the two groups. Multivariate analysis revealed no association between the two techniques and FFS. Patients with primary tumors in parameningeal sites were more likely to receive IMRT than 3D-CRT. IMRT became more common during the later years of the study. Patients receiving IMRT were more likely to receive >50 Gy, photon energy of ≤6 MV, and >5 radiation fields than those who received 3D-CRT. The coverage of the IMRT planning target volume by the prescription dose was improved compared with the coverage using 3D-CRT with similar target dose heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT improved the target dose coverage compared with 3D-CRT, although an improvement in locoregional control or FFS could not be demonstrated in this population. Future studies comparing the integral dose to nontarget tissue and late radiation toxicity between the two groups are warranted. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: To compare the dosimetric parameters of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in patients with intermediate-risk rhabdomyosarcoma and to analyze their effect on locoregional control and failure-free survival (FFS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study population consisted of 375 patients enrolled in the Children's Oncology Group protocol D9803 study, receiving IMRT or 3D-CRT. Dosimetric data were collected from 179 patients with an available composite plan. The chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used to compare the patient characteristics and radiotherapy parameters between the two groups. The interval-to-event outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to examine the effect of the treatment technique on FFS after adjusting for primary site and risk group. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 5.7 and 4.2 years for patients receiving 3D-CRT and IMRT, respectively. No differences in the 5-year failure of locoregional control (18% vs. 15%) or FFS (72% vs. 76%) rates were noted between the two groups. Multivariate analysis revealed no association between the two techniques and FFS. Patients with primary tumors in parameningeal sites were more likely to receive IMRT than 3D-CRT. IMRT became more common during the later years of the study. Patients receiving IMRT were more likely to receive >50 Gy, photon energy of ≤6 MV, and >5 radiation fields than those who received 3D-CRT. The coverage of the IMRT planning target volume by the prescription dose was improved compared with the coverage using 3D-CRT with similar target dose heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT improved the target dose coverage compared with 3D-CRT, although an improvement in locoregional control or FFS could not be demonstrated in this population. Future studies comparing the integral dose to nontarget tissue and late radiation toxicity between the two groups are warranted. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Ulrich Hermanto; Erik K Frija; Mingfwu J Lii; Eric L Chang; Anita Mahajan; Shiao Y Woo Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-01-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Suzanne L Wolden; Leonard H Wexler; Dennis H Kraus; Michael P Laquaglia; Eric Lis; Paul A Meyers Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Liv Veldeman; Indira Madani; Frank Hulstaert; Gert De Meerleer; Marc Mareel; Wilfried De Neve Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Edmond H N Pow; Dora L W Kwong; Anne S McMillan; May C M Wong; Jonathan S T Sham; Lucullus H T Leung; W Keung Leung Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stephanie E Combs; Wolfgang Behnisch; Andreas E Kulozik; Peter E Huber; Jürgen Debus; Daniela Schulz-Ertner Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2007-09-13 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Dana L Casey; Yueh-Yun Chi; Sarah S Donaldson; Douglas S Hawkins; Jing Tian; Carola A Arndt; David A Rodeberg; Jonathan C Routh; Timothy B Lautz; Abha A Gupta; Torunn I Yock; Suzanne L Wolden Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: J H M Merks; G L De Salvo; C Bergeron; G Bisogno; A De Paoli; A Ferrari; A Rey; O Oberlin; M C G Stevens; A Kelsey; J Michalski; D S Hawkins; J R Anderson Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Jamie M Aye; Yueh-Yun Chi; Jing Tian; Erin R Rudzinski; Odion T Binitie; Roshni Dasgupta; Suzanne L Wolden; Douglas S Hawkins; Abha A Gupta Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Thomas E Merchant; David Hodgson; Nadia N I Laack; Suzanne Wolden; Danny J Indelicato; John A Kalapurakal Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 3.167