BACKGROUND: The vital importance of imaging techniques in radiation oncology now extends beyond diagnostic evaluation and treatment planning. Recent technical advances have enabled the integration of various imaging modalities into the everyday practice of radiotherapy directly at the linear accelerator, improving the management of inter- and intrafractional variations. METHODS: We present the topic of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) on the basis of a selective review of the literature. RESULTS: IGRT can be performed with the aid of ultrasound, 2D X-ray devices, and computed tomography. It enables instant correction for positioning deviations and thereby improves the precision of daily radiotherapy fractions. It also enables immediate adjustment for changes in the position and filling status of the internal organs. Anatomical changes that take place over the course of radiotherapy, such as weight loss, tumor shrinkage, and the opening of atelectases, can be detected as they occur and accounted for in dosimetric calculations. There have not yet been any randomized controlled trials showing that IGRT causes fewer adverse effects or improves tumor control compared to conventional radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: IGRT is more precise and thus potentially safer than conventional radiotherapy. It also enables the application of special radiotherapeutic techniques with narrow safety margins in the vicinity of radiosensitive organs. Proper patient selection for IGRT must take account of the goals of treatment and the planning characteristics, as well as the available technical and human resources. IGRT should be used for steep dose gradients near organs at risk, for highly conformal dose distributions in the gastrointestinal tract where adjustment for filling variations is needed, for high-precision dose escalation to avoid geographic miss, and for patients who cannot lie perfectly still because of pain or claustrophobia.
BACKGROUND: The vital importance of imaging techniques in radiation oncology now extends beyond diagnostic evaluation and treatment planning. Recent technical advances have enabled the integration of various imaging modalities into the everyday practice of radiotherapy directly at the linear accelerator, improving the management of inter- and intrafractional variations. METHODS: We present the topic of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) on the basis of a selective review of the literature. RESULTS: IGRT can be performed with the aid of ultrasound, 2D X-ray devices, and computed tomography. It enables instant correction for positioning deviations and thereby improves the precision of daily radiotherapy fractions. It also enables immediate adjustment for changes in the position and filling status of the internal organs. Anatomical changes that take place over the course of radiotherapy, such as weight loss, tumor shrinkage, and the opening of atelectases, can be detected as they occur and accounted for in dosimetric calculations. There have not yet been any randomized controlled trials showing that IGRT causes fewer adverse effects or improves tumor control compared to conventional radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: IGRT is more precise and thus potentially safer than conventional radiotherapy. It also enables the application of special radiotherapeutic techniques with narrow safety margins in the vicinity of radiosensitive organs. Proper patient selection for IGRT must take account of the goals of treatment and the planning characteristics, as well as the available technical and human resources. IGRT should be used for steep dose gradients near organs at risk, for highly conformal dose distributions in the gastrointestinal tract where adjustment for filling variations is needed, for high-precision dose escalation to avoid geographic miss, and for patients who cannot lie perfectly still because of pain or claustrophobia.
Authors: T R Mackie; J Balog; K Ruchala; D Shepard; S Aldridge; E Fitchard; P Reckwerdt; G Olivera; T McNutt; M Mehta Journal: Semin Radiat Oncol Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 5.934
Authors: Lei Xing; Brian Thorndyke; Eduard Schreibmann; Yong Yang; Tian-Fang Li; Gwe-Ya Kim; Gary Luxton; Albert Koong Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2006 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: Calvin Huntzinger; Peter Munro; Scott Johnson; Mika Miettinen; Corey Zankowski; Greg Ahlstrom; Reto Glettig; Reto Filliberti; Wolfgang Kaissl; Martin Kamber; Martin Amstutz; Lionel Bouchet; Dan Klebanov; Hassan Mostafavi; Richard Stark Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2006 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: K M Langen; S L Meeks; D O Poole; T H Wagner; T R Willoughby; P A Kupelian; K J Ruchala; J Haimerl; G H Olivera Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2005-08-31 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Oliver Jonas; Heather M Landry; Jason E Fuller; John T Santini; Jose Baselga; Robert I Tepper; Michael J Cima; Robert Langer Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Tilman Bostel; Nils H Nicolay; Jörg G Grossmann; Angela Mohr; Stefan Delorme; Gernot Echner; Peter Häring; Jürgen Debus; Florian Sterzing Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Sebastian Klüter; Sonja Katayama; C Katharina Spindeldreier; Stefan A Koerber; Gerald Major; Markus Alber; Sati Akbaba; Jürgen Debus; Juliane Hörner-Rieber Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.621