AIM: To establish the feasibility of simultaneous modulated accelerated radiation therapy (SMART) in esophageal cancer (EC). METHODS: Computed tomography (CT) datasets of 10 patients with upper or middle thoracic squamous cell EC undergoing chemoradiotherapy were used to generate SMART, conventionally-fractionated three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (cf-IMRT) plans, respectively. The gross target volume (GTV) of the esophagus, positive regional lymph nodes (LN), and suspected lymph nodes (LN ±) were contoured for each patient. The clinical target volume (CTV) was delineated with 2-cm longitudinal and 0.5- to 1.0-cm radial margins with respect to the GTV and with 0.5-cm uniform margins for LN and LN(±). For the SMART plans, there were two planning target volumes (PTVs): PTV66 = (GTV + LN) + 0.5 cm and PTV54 = CTV + 0.5 cm. For the 3DCRT and cf-IMRT plans, there was only a single PTV: PTV60 = CTV + 0.5 cm. The prescribed dose for the SMART plans was 66 Gy/30 F to PTV66 and 54 Gy/30 F to PTV54. The dose prescription to the PTV60 for both the 3DCRT and cf-IMRT plans was set to 60 Gy/30 F. All the plans were generated on the Eclipse 10.0 treatment planning system. Fulfillment of the dose criteria for the PTVs received the highest priority, followed by the spinal cord, heart, and lungs. The dose-volume histograms were compared. RESULTS: Clinically acceptable plans were achieved for all the SMART, cf-IMRT, and 3DCRT plans. Compared with the 3DCRT plans, the SMART plans increased the dose delivered to the primary tumor (66 Gy vs 60 Gy), with improved sparing of normal tissues in all patients. The Dmax of the spinal cord, V20 of the lungs, and Dmean and V50 of the heart for the SMART and 3DCRT plans were as follows: 38.5 ± 2.0 vs 44.7 ± 0.8 (P = 0.002), 17.1 ± 4.0 vs 25.8 ± 5.0 (P = 0.000), 14.4 ± 7.5 vs 21.4 ± 11.1 (P = 0.000), and 4.9 ± 3.4 vs 12.9 ± 7.6 (P = 0.000), respectively. In contrast to the cf-IMRT plans, the SMART plans permitted a simultaneous dose escalation (6 Gy) to the primary tumor while demonstrating a significant trend of a lower irradiation dose to all organs at risk except the spinal cord, for which no significant difference was found. CONCLUSION: SMART offers the potential for a 6 Gy simultaneous escalation in the irradiation dose delivered to the primary tumor of EC and improves the sparing of normal tissues.
AIM: To establish the feasibility of simultaneous modulated accelerated radiation therapy (SMART) in esophageal cancer (EC). METHODS: Computed tomography (CT) datasets of 10 patients with upper or middle thoracic squamous cell EC undergoing chemoradiotherapy were used to generate SMART, conventionally-fractionated three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (cf-IMRT) plans, respectively. The gross target volume (GTV) of the esophagus, positive regional lymph nodes (LN), and suspected lymph nodes (LN ±) were contoured for each patient. The clinical target volume (CTV) was delineated with 2-cm longitudinal and 0.5- to 1.0-cm radial margins with respect to the GTV and with 0.5-cm uniform margins for LN and LN(±). For the SMART plans, there were two planning target volumes (PTVs): PTV66 = (GTV + LN) + 0.5 cm and PTV54 = CTV + 0.5 cm. For the 3DCRT and cf-IMRT plans, there was only a single PTV: PTV60 = CTV + 0.5 cm. The prescribed dose for the SMART plans was 66 Gy/30 F to PTV66 and 54 Gy/30 F to PTV54. The dose prescription to the PTV60 for both the 3DCRT and cf-IMRT plans was set to 60 Gy/30 F. All the plans were generated on the Eclipse 10.0 treatment planning system. Fulfillment of the dose criteria for the PTVs received the highest priority, followed by the spinal cord, heart, and lungs. The dose-volume histograms were compared. RESULTS: Clinically acceptable plans were achieved for all the SMART, cf-IMRT, and 3DCRT plans. Compared with the 3DCRT plans, the SMART plans increased the dose delivered to the primary tumor (66 Gy vs 60 Gy), with improved sparing of normal tissues in all patients. The Dmax of the spinal cord, V20 of the lungs, and Dmean and V50 of the heart for the SMART and 3DCRT plans were as follows: 38.5 ± 2.0 vs 44.7 ± 0.8 (P = 0.002), 17.1 ± 4.0 vs 25.8 ± 5.0 (P = 0.000), 14.4 ± 7.5 vs 21.4 ± 11.1 (P = 0.000), and 4.9 ± 3.4 vs 12.9 ± 7.6 (P = 0.000), respectively. In contrast to the cf-IMRT plans, the SMART plans permitted a simultaneous dose escalation (6 Gy) to the primary tumor while demonstrating a significant trend of a lower irradiation dose to all organs at risk except the spinal cord, for which no significant difference was found. CONCLUSION: SMART offers the potential for a 6 Gy simultaneous escalation in the irradiation dose delivered to the primary tumor of EC and improves the sparing of normal tissues.
Authors: Thomas P Kole; Osarhieme Aghayere; Jason Kwah; Ellen D Yorke; Karyn A Goodman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Maria Werner-Wasik; Ellen Yorke; Joseph Deasy; Jiho Nam; Lawrence B Marks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Marcelo Mamede; Georges El Fakhri; Paula Abreu-e-Lima; William Gandler; Vânia Nosé; Victor H Gerbaudo Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2007-12-25 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: Yi-Jen Chen; Chunhui Han; An Liu; Timothy E Schultheiss; Kemp H Kernstine; Stephen Shibata; Nayana L Vora; Richard D Pezner; Jeffrey Y C Wong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-05-25 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Reith R Sarkar; Ahmadreza Hatamipour; Neil Panjwani; P Travis Courtney; Daniel R Cherry; Mia A Salans; Anthony T Yip; Brent S Rose; Daniel R Simpson; Matthew P Banegas; James D Murphy Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 2.787