PURPOSE: To evaluate the radial displacement of clinical target volume in the patients with node negative head and neck (H&N) cancer and to quantify the relative positional changes compared to that of normal healthy volunteers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three node-negative H&N cancer patients and five healthy volunteers were enrolled in this study. For setup accuracy, neck thermoplastic masks and laser alignment were used in each of the acquired computed tomography (CT) images. Both groups had total three sequential CT images in every two weeks. The lymph node (LN) level of the neck was delineated based on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) consensus guideline by one physician. We use the second cervical vertebra body as a reference point to match each CT image set. Each of the sequential CT images and delineated neck LN levels were fused with the primary image, then maximal radial displacement was measured at 1.5 cm intervals from skull base (SB) to caudal margin of LN level V, and the volume differences at each node level were quantified. RESULTS: The mean radial displacements were 2.26 (±1.03) mm in the control group and 3.05 (±1.97) in the H&N cancer patients. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of the mean radial displacement (p = 0.03). In addition, the mean radial displacement increased with the distance from SB. As for the mean volume differences, there was no statistical significance between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that a more generous radial margin should be applied to the lower part of the neck LN for better clinical target coverage and dose delivery.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the radial displacement of clinical target volume in the patients with node negative head and neck (H&N) cancer and to quantify the relative positional changes compared to that of normal healthy volunteers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three node-negative H&N cancerpatients and five healthy volunteers were enrolled in this study. For setup accuracy, neck thermoplastic masks and laser alignment were used in each of the acquired computed tomography (CT) images. Both groups had total three sequential CT images in every two weeks. The lymph node (LN) level of the neck was delineated based on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) consensus guideline by one physician. We use the second cervical vertebra body as a reference point to match each CT image set. Each of the sequential CT images and delineated neck LN levels were fused with the primary image, then maximal radial displacement was measured at 1.5 cm intervals from skull base (SB) to caudal margin of LN level V, and the volume differences at each node level were quantified. RESULTS: The mean radial displacements were 2.26 (±1.03) mm in the control group and 3.05 (±1.97) in the H&N cancerpatients. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of the mean radial displacement (p = 0.03). In addition, the mean radial displacement increased with the distance from SB. As for the mean volume differences, there was no statistical significance between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that a more generous radial margin should be applied to the lower part of the neck LN for better clinical target coverage and dose delivery.
Entities:
Keywords:
Head and neck neoplasms; Image-guided; Lymph nodes; Radiotherapy
Authors: Vincent Grégoire; Peter Levendag; Kian K Ang; Jacques Bernier; Marijel Braaksma; Volker Budach; Cliff Chao; Emmanuel Coche; Jay S Cooper; Guy Cosnard; Avraham Eisbruch; Samy El-Sayed; Bahman Emami; Cai Grau; Marc Hamoir; Nancy Lee; Philippe Maingon; Karin Muller; Hervé Reychler Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Lifei Zhang; Adam S Garden; Justin Lo; K Kian Ang; Anesa Ahamad; William H Morrison; David I Rosenthal; Mark S Chambers; X Ronald Zhu; Radhe Mohan; Lei Dong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: H C de Boer; J R van Sörnsen de Koste; C L Creutzberg; A G Visser; P C Levendag; B J Heijmen Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Bram van Asselen; Cornelis P J Raaijmakers; Jan J W Lagendijk; Chris H J Terhaard Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alfio Ferlito; Alessandra Rinaldo; Kenneth O Devaney; Ken MacLennan; Jeffrey N Myers; Guy J Petruzzelli; Ashok R Shaha; Eric M Genden; Jonas T Johnson; Marcos B de Carvalho; Eugene N Myers Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Gregory Sharp; Karl D Fritscher; Vladimir Pekar; Marta Peroni; Nadya Shusharina; Harini Veeraraghavan; Jinzhong Yang Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Christina Leitzen; Timo Wilhelm-Buchstab; Thomas Müdder; Martina Heimann; David Koch; Christopher Schmeel; Birgit Simon; Sabina Stumpf; Susanne Vornholt; Stephan Garbe; Fred Röhner; Felix Schoroth; Hans Heinz Schild; Heinrich Schüller Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 3.621