Literature DB >> 22196796

Adaptive radiotherapy using helical tomotherapy for head and neck cancer in definitive and postoperative settings: initial results.

L Capelle1, M Mackenzie, C Field, M Parliament, S Ghosh, R Scrimger.   

Abstract

AIMS: To assess whether routine mid-treatment replanning in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients results in meaningful improvements in target or normal tissue dosimetry and to assess which patients derive the greatest benefit.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients treated with either postoperative chemoradiotherapy or definitive chemoradiotherapy with primary or nodal disease ≥3cm in size were included in this prospective pilot study. Seven patients received adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and 13 received definitive chemoradiotherapy. Patients were planned and treated on a helical tomotherapy system. All patients had a second computed tomography scan after 15 fractions and a new plan based on this was initiated from fraction 20.
RESULTS: Relative volume changes between computed tomography scans were: GTV 29%; CTV60 (adjuvant patients) 4%; parotid volume 17.5%; median reduction in neck separation 6-7 mm; weight loss 3%. For the group overall and for the definitively treated patient cohort, respectively, adapted plans resulted in reductions in PTV66 D(1) (0.3Gy, P=0.01 and 0.5Gy, P=0.01); PTV54 D(1) (0.6Gy, P<0.0001 and 0.9Gy, P=0.0002); spinal cord maximum (0.5Gy, P=0.004 and 0.6Gy, P=0.04) and volume of skin receiving ≥50Gy (16 cm(2), P=0.01 and 19 cm(2), P=0.001). Definitively treated patients also had a reduction in mean parotid dose (0.6Gy, P=0.046) and volume of normal tissue receiving ≥50Gy (67 cm(3), P=0.02). Patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma received the greatest benefits with treatment adaptation with reduction in spinal cord maximum 1.2Gy, mean parotid dose 1.2Gy and parotid V(26) 6.3%. There was no significant benefit for adjuvant patients. Other factors associated with greater benefits were greater weight loss and greater reduction in neck separation and higher T stage.
CONCLUSIONS: There is minimal benefit to routine adaptive replanning in unselected patients, and no benefit in adjuvantly treated patients. Patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma or with greater weight loss or reduction in neck separation did have clinically significant benefits. These patients should be targeted for adaptive strategies.
Copyright © 2011 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22196796     DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2011.11.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)        ISSN: 0936-6555            Impact factor:   4.126


  23 in total

1.  Validation of an updated evidence-based protocol for proactive gastrostomy tube insertion in patients with head and neck cancer.

Authors:  T E Brown; V Getliffe; M D Banks; B G M Hughes; C Y Lin; L M Kenny; J D Bauer
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 4.016

2.  Co-registration of cone beam CT and planning CT in head and neck IMRT dose estimation: a feasible adaptive radiotherapy strategy.

Authors:  C Yip; C Thomas; A Michaelidou; D James; R Lynn; M Lei; T Guerrero Urbano
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-11-28       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  Adaptive radiation therapy in head and neck cancer for clinical practice: state of the art and practical challenges.

Authors:  Ovidiu Veresezan; Idriss Troussier; Alexis Lacout; Sarah Kreps; Sophie Maillard; Aude Toulemonde; Pierre-Yves Marcy; Florence Huguet; Juliette Thariat
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 2.374

4.  Analytical modeling and feasibility study of a multi-GPU cloud-based server (MGCS) framework for non-voxel-based dose calculations.

Authors:  J Neylon; Y Min; P Kupelian; D A Low; A Santhanam
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 2.924

Review 5.  Head and Neck Cancer Adaptive Radiation Therapy (ART): Conceptual Considerations for the Informed Clinician.

Authors:  Jolien Heukelom; Clifton David Fuller
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 5.934

6.  Adaptive Radiotherapy for Head Neck Cancer.

Authors:  Shrikant Balasaheb Mali
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2016-02-22

7.  Adaptive Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer.

Authors:  Murat Surucu; Karan K Shah; John C Roeske; Mehee Choi; William Small; Bahman Emami
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-08-19

8.  New radiotherapy techniques do not reduce the need for nutrition intervention in patients with head and neck cancer.

Authors:  T Brown; M Banks; B G M Hughes; C Lin; L M Kenny; J D Bauer
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2015-08-26       Impact factor: 4.016

9.  Volumetric and positional changes of planning target volumes and organs at risk using computed tomography imaging during intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head-neck cancer: an "old" adaptive radiation therapy approach.

Authors:  Alessia Reali; Silvia Maria Anglesio; Gianluca Mortellaro; Simona Allis; Sara Bartoncini; Maria Grazia Ruo Redda; Francesca Arcadipane
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2014-02-08       Impact factor: 3.469

10.  Local failure patterns for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma after intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Authors:  Jia-Xin Li; Shao-min Huang; Xin-hua Jiang; Bin Ouyang; Fei Han; Shuai Liu; Bi-xiu Wen; Tai-xiang Lu
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2014-03-27       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.