Literature DB >> 22436794

A three-isocenter jagged-junction IMRT approach for craniospinal irradiation without beam edge matching for field junctions.

Fred Cao1, Ramani Ramaseshan, Robert Corns, Sheryl Harrop, Nimet Nuraney, Peter Steiner, Stephanie Aldridge, Mitchell Liu, Hannah Carolan, Alex Agranovich, Anand Karvat.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Traditionally craniospinal irradiation treats the central nervous system using two or three adjacent field sets. We propose a technique using a three-isocenter intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plan (jagged-junction IMRT) which overcomes problems associated with field junctions and beam edge matching and improves planning and treatment setup efficiencies with homogenous target dose distribution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Treatments for 3 patients with a prescription of 36 Gy in 20 fractions were retrospectively planned with jagged-junction IMRT and compared to conventional treatment plans. Planning target volume (PTV) included the whole brain and spinal canal to the S3 vertebral level. The plan used three field sets, each with a unique isocenter. One field set with seven fields treated the cranium. Two field sets treated the spine, each set using three fields. Fields from adjacent sets were overlapped, and the optimization process smoothly integrated the dose inside the overlapped junction.
RESULTS: For jagged-junction IMRT plans vs. conventional technique, the average homogeneity index equaled 0.08 ± 0.01 vs. 0.12 ± 0.02, respectively, and conformity number equaled 0.79 ± 0.01 vs. 0.47 ± 0.12, respectively. The 95% isodose surface covered (99.5 ± 0.3)% of the PTV vs. (98.1 ± 2.0)%, respectively. Both jagged-junction IMRT plans and the conventional plans had good sparing of organs at risk.
CONCLUSIONS: Jagged-junction IMRT planning provided good dose homogeneity and conformity to the target while maintaining a low dose to organs at risk. Results from jagged-junction IMRT plans were better than or equivalent to those from the conventional technique. Jagged-junction IMRT optimization smoothly distributed dose in the junction between field sets. Because there was no beam matching, this treatment technique is less likely to produce hot or cold spots at the junction, in contrast to conventional techniques. The planning process is also simplified as only one IMRT plan is required for the entire target volume.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22436794     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.01.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  12 in total

1.  Reducing the dosimetric impact of positional errors in field junctions for craniospinal irradiation using VMAT.

Authors:  Andrej Strojnik; Ignasi Méndez; Primož Peterlin
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2016-03-28

2.  A novel inverse optimization based three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy technique in craniospinal irradiation.

Authors:  Fatih Biltekin; Gozde Yazici; Gokhan Ozyigit
Journal:  Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2021-02-08

3.  MLC-based penumbra softener of EDW borders to reduce junction inhomogeneities.

Authors:  Stanislaw Szpala; Kirpal Kohli
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 2.102

4.  Practical dose delivery verification of craniospinal IMRT.

Authors:  Young K Lee; Anthony T Kim; Peiying Zhao; Aliaksandr Karotki
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-11-08       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Evaluating the positional uncertainty of intrafraction, adjacent fields, and daily setup with the BrainLAB ExacTrac system in patients who are receiving craniospinal irradiation.

Authors:  Xiaojuan Duan; Yibing Zhou; Hongya Dai; Lirong Zhao; Jindong Qian; Dingqiang Yang; Liwei Zhang; Can Luo; Guanghui Li
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  A new strategy for craniospinal axis localization and adaptive dosimetric evaluation using cone beam CT.

Authors:  Kather Hussain Mohamathu Rafic; Christopher Sujith; Balakrishnan Rajesh; Ebenezer Suman Babu S; Peace Balasingh Timothy; B Selvamani; Paul B Ravindran
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2019-12-10

7.  A simple approach of three-isocenter IMRT planning for craniospinal irradiation.

Authors:  Zheng Wang; Wei Jiang; Yuanming Feng; Yang Guo; Zheng Cong; Bin Song; Yu Guo
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 3.481

8.  Universal field matching in craniospinal irradiation by a background-dose gradient-optimized method.

Authors:  Erik Traneus; Nicola Bizzocchi; Francesco Fellin; Barbara Rombi; Paolo Farace
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  A feasibility study using TomoDirect for craniospinal irradiation.

Authors:  Ulrich W Langner; Janelle A Molloy; John F Gleason; Jonathan M Feddock
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2013-09-06       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Impact of setup errors on multi-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy for craniospinal irradiation.

Authors:  Yongqiang Zhou; Yao Ai; Ce Han; Xiaomin Zheng; Jinling Yi; Congying Xie; Xiance Jin
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-10-18       Impact factor: 2.243

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.