Jaime Gomez-Millan1, Jesús Romero Fernández2, Jose Antonio Medina Carmona3. 1. Servicio de Oncologia Radioterapica del Hospital Clínico Virgen de la Victoria, Campus Teatinos s/n, 29010 Málaga, Spain. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Puerta de Hierro, Calle de Manuel de Falla, 1, 28222 Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Virgen de la Victoria, Campus Teatinos s/n, 29010 Málaga, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: IMRT provides highly conformal dose distributions creating non uniform spatial intensity using different segments in the beam. MATERIAL & METHODS AND RESULTS: Different retrospective studies have shown a high capability of IMRT to treat tumours close to the base of skull. Prospective studies have shown a decrease in xerostomia compared with conventional 3D conformal treatment (3DCRT). Modulation of intensity is performed by the movement of the multileaf collimator (MLC) that can deliver the radiation in different ways, such as static field segments, dynamic field segments and rotational delivery (arc therapy and tomotherapy). There are slight differences among the different techniques in terms of homogeneity, dose conformity and treatment delivery time. CONCLUSIONS: The best method to deliver IMRT will depend on multiple factors such as deliverability, practicality, user training and plan quality.
BACKGROUND: IMRT provides highly conformal dose distributions creating non uniform spatial intensity using different segments in the beam. MATERIAL & METHODS AND RESULTS: Different retrospective studies have shown a high capability of IMRT to treat tumours close to the base of skull. Prospective studies have shown a decrease in xerostomia compared with conventional 3D conformal treatment (3DCRT). Modulation of intensity is performed by the movement of the multileaf collimator (MLC) that can deliver the radiation in different ways, such as static field segments, dynamic field segments and rotational delivery (arc therapy and tomotherapy). There are slight differences among the different techniques in terms of homogeneity, dose conformity and treatment delivery time. CONCLUSIONS: The best method to deliver IMRT will depend on multiple factors such as deliverability, practicality, user training and plan quality.
Entities:
Keywords:
Head and neck cancer; Intensity modulated radiation therapy; Rotational therapy; Tomotherapy
Authors: Wim Duthoy; Tom Boterberg; Filip Claus; Piet Ost; Luc Vakaet; Samuel Bral; Frederic Duprez; Marianne Van Landuyt; Hubert Vermeersch; Wilfried De Neve Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Eric E Klein; Joseph Hanley; John Bayouth; Fang-Fang Yin; William Simon; Sean Dresser; Christopher Serago; Francisco Aguirre; Lijun Ma; Bijan Arjomandy; Chihray Liu; Carlos Sandin; Todd Holmes Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Daniel R Simpson; Joshua D Lawson; Sameer K Nath; Brent S Rose; Arno J Mundt; Loren K Mell Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Dirk Van Gestel; Corine van Vliet-Vroegindeweij; Frank Van den Heuvel; Wouter Crijns; Ann Coelmont; Bie De Ost; Andrea Holt; Emmy Lamers; Yasmyne Geussens; Sandra Nuyts; Danielle Van den Weyngaert; Tim Van den Wyngaert; Jan B Vermorken; Vincent Gregoire Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Wen Chen; Yimin Li; Brandon A Dyer; Xue Feng; Shyam Rao; Stanley H Benedict; Quan Chen; Yi Rong Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 3.481