PURPOSE: Spatially fractionated GRID radiotherapy (SFGRT) using a customized Cerrobend block has been used to improve response rates in patients with bulky tumors. The clinical efficacy of our own multileaf collimator (MLC) technique is unknown. We undertook a retrospective analysis to compare clinical response rates attained using these two techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seventy-nine patients with bulky tumors (median diameter, 7.6 cm; range, 4-30 cm) treated with SFGRT were reviewed. Between 2003 and late 2005, the Cerrobend block technique (n = 39) was used. Between late 2005 and 2008, SFGRT was delivered using MLC-shaped fields (n = 40). Dose was prescribed to dmax (depth of maximum dose) and was typically 15 Gy. Eighty percent of patients in both groups received external beam radiotherapy in addition to SFGRT. The two-sided Fisher-Freeman-Halton test was used to compare pain and mass effect response rates between the two groups. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients (77%) were treated for palliative intent and 18 (23%) for curative intent. The majority of patients had either lung or head-and-neck primaries in both groups; the most frequent site of SFGRT application was the neck. The majority of patients complained of either pain (65%) or mass effect (58%) at intake. Overall response rates for pain and mass response were no different between the Cerrobend and MLC groups: pain, 75% and 74%, respectively (p = 0.50), and mass effect, 67% and 73%, respectively (p = 0.85). The majority of toxicities were Grade 1 or 2, and only 3 patients had late Grade 3-4 toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: MLC-based and Cerrobend-based SFGRT have comparable and encouraging response rates when used either in the palliative or curative setting. MLC-based SGFRT should allow clinics to more easily adopt this novel treatment approach for the treatment of bulky tumors. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: Spatially fractionated GRID radiotherapy (SFGRT) using a customized Cerrobend block has been used to improve response rates in patients with bulky tumors. The clinical efficacy of our own multileaf collimator (MLC) technique is unknown. We undertook a retrospective analysis to compare clinical response rates attained using these two techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seventy-nine patients with bulky tumors (median diameter, 7.6 cm; range, 4-30 cm) treated with SFGRT were reviewed. Between 2003 and late 2005, the Cerrobend block technique (n = 39) was used. Between late 2005 and 2008, SFGRT was delivered using MLC-shaped fields (n = 40). Dose was prescribed to dmax (depth of maximum dose) and was typically 15 Gy. Eighty percent of patients in both groups received external beam radiotherapy in addition to SFGRT. The two-sided Fisher-Freeman-Halton test was used to compare pain and mass effect response rates between the two groups. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients (77%) were treated for palliative intent and 18 (23%) for curative intent. The majority of patients had either lung or head-and-neck primaries in both groups; the most frequent site of SFGRT application was the neck. The majority of patients complained of either pain (65%) or mass effect (58%) at intake. Overall response rates for pain and mass response were no different between the Cerrobend and MLC groups: pain, 75% and 74%, respectively (p = 0.50), and mass effect, 67% and 73%, respectively (p = 0.85). The majority of toxicities were Grade 1 or 2, and only 3 patients had late Grade 3-4 toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: MLC-based and Cerrobend-based SFGRT have comparable and encouraging response rates when used either in the palliative or curative setting. MLC-based SGFRT should allow clinics to more easily adopt this novel treatment approach for the treatment of bulky tumors. Copyright Â
Authors: Blake R Smith; Nicholas P Nelson; Theodore J Geoghegan; Kaustubh A Patwardhan; Patrick M Hill; Jen Yu; Alonso N Gutiérrez; Bryan G Allen; Daniel E Hyer Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Saravana Kanagavelu; Seema Gupta; Xiaodong Wu; Sakhi Philip; Max M Wattenberg; James W Hodge; Mariluz D Couto; Kristina D Chung; Mansoor M Ahmed Journal: Radiat Res Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 2.841
Authors: Rajalakshmi Asur; Karl T Butterworth; Jose A Penagaricano; Kevin M Prise; Robert J Griffin Journal: Cancer Lett Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 8.679
Authors: M Hadsell; J Zhang; P Laganis; F Sprenger; J Shan; L Zhang; L Burk; H Yuan; S Chang; J Lu; O Zhou Journal: Appl Phys Lett Date: 2013-10-30 Impact factor: 3.791
Authors: Timothy R Johnson; Alex M Bassil; Nerissa T Williams; Simon Brundage; Collin L Kent; Greg Palmer; Yvonne M Mowery; Mark Oldham Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2022-02-18 Impact factor: 4.174