PURPOSE: To compare helical tomotherapy (HT) and conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) using a variety of dosimetric and radiobiologic indexes in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 20 patients with LA-NSCLC were enrolled. IMRT plans with 4-6 coplanar beams and HT plans were generated for each patient. Dose distributions and dosimetric indexes for the tumors and critical structures were computed for both plans and compared. RESULTS: Both modalities created highly conformal plans. They did not differ in the volumes of lung exposed to > 20 Gy of radiation. The average mean lung dose, volume receiving ≥ 30 Gy, and volume receiving ≥ 10 Gy in HT planning were 18.3 Gy, 18.5%, and 57.1%, respectively, compared to 19.4 Gy, 25.4%, and 48.9%, respectively, with IMRT (p = 0.004, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001). The differences between HT and IMRT in lung volume receiving ≥ 10-20 Gy increased significantly as the planning target volume (PTV) increased. For 6 patients who had PTV greater than 700 cm(3), IMRT was superior to HT for 5 patients in terms of lung volume receiving ≥ 5-20 Gy. The integral dose to the entire thorax in HT plans was significantly higher than in IMRT plans. CONCLUSION: HT gave significantly better control of mean lung dose and volume receiving ≥ 30-40 Gy, whereas IMRT provided better control of the lung volume receiving ≥ 5-15 Gy and the integral dose to entire thorax. In most patients with PTV greater than 700 cm(3), IMRT was superior to HT in terms of lung volume receiving ≥ 5-20 Gy. It is therefore advised that caution should be exercised when planning LA-NSCLC using HT.
PURPOSE: To compare helical tomotherapy (HT) and conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) using a variety of dosimetric and radiobiologic indexes in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 20 patients with LA-NSCLC were enrolled. IMRT plans with 4-6 coplanar beams and HT plans were generated for each patient. Dose distributions and dosimetric indexes for the tumors and critical structures were computed for both plans and compared. RESULTS: Both modalities created highly conformal plans. They did not differ in the volumes of lung exposed to > 20 Gy of radiation. The average mean lung dose, volume receiving ≥ 30 Gy, and volume receiving ≥ 10 Gy in HT planning were 18.3 Gy, 18.5%, and 57.1%, respectively, compared to 19.4 Gy, 25.4%, and 48.9%, respectively, with IMRT (p = 0.004, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001). The differences between HT and IMRT in lung volume receiving ≥ 10-20 Gy increased significantly as the planning target volume (PTV) increased. For 6 patients who had PTV greater than 700 cm(3), IMRT was superior to HT for 5 patients in terms of lung volume receiving ≥ 5-20 Gy. The integral dose to the entire thorax in HT plans was significantly higher than in IMRT plans. CONCLUSION: HT gave significantly better control of mean lung dose and volume receiving ≥ 30-40 Gy, whereas IMRT provided better control of the lung volume receiving ≥ 5-15 Gy and the integral dose to entire thorax. In most patients with PTV greater than 700 cm(3), IMRT was superior to HT in terms of lung volume receiving ≥ 5-20 Gy. It is therefore advised that caution should be exercised when planning LA-NSCLC using HT.
Authors: Ellen D Yorke; Andrew Jackson; Kenneth E Rosenzweig; Louise Braban; Steven A Leibel; C Clifton Ling Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: T R Mackie; T Holmes; S Swerdloff; P Reckwerdt; J O Deasy; J Yang; B Paliwal; T Kinsella Journal: Med Phys Date: 1993 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Ramesh Rengan; Kenneth E Rosenzweig; Ennapadam Venkatraman; Lawrence A Koutcher; Jana L Fox; Reena Nayak; Howard Amols; Ellen Yorke; Andrew Jackson; C Clifton Ling; Steven A Leibel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: David J Brenner; Richard Doll; Dudley T Goodhead; Eric J Hall; Charles E Land; John B Little; Jay H Lubin; Dale L Preston; R Julian Preston; Jerome S Puskin; Elaine Ron; Rainer K Sachs; Jonathan M Samet; Richard B Setlow; Marco Zaider Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-11-10 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Matthias Felix Häfner; Falk Roeder; Florian Sterzing; David Krug; Stefan A Koerber; Jutta Kappes; Hans Hoffmann; Alla Slynko; Jürgen Debus; Marc Bischof Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-08-26 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Karl Wurstbauer; Heinz Deutschmann; Karin Dagn; Peter Kopp; Franz Zehentmayr; Bernd Lamprecht; Peter Porsch; Birgit Wegleitner; Michael Studnicka; Felix Sedlmayer Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 3.481