Thorsten Frenzel1, Andreas Krüll2. 1. Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Bereich Strahlentherapie, Ambulanzzentrum des UKE GmbH, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland. frenzel@uke.uni-hamburg.de. 2. Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Bereich Strahlentherapie, Ambulanzzentrum des UKE GmbH, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland. kruell@uke.uni-hamburg.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is frequently used, but there are no data about current frequency regarding specific tumor sites and equipment used for quality assurance (QA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey about IMRT was executed from April to October 2014 by the collaborative IMRT working group (AK IMRT) of the German Association of Medical Physicists (DGMP). RESULTS: A total of 23 German institutions took part in the survey. Most reports came from users working with Elekta, Varian, and Siemens treatment machines, but also from TomoTherapy and BrainLab. Most frequent IMRT technology was volumetric modulated arc therapy (58.37 %: VMAT/"rapid arc"), followed by step-and-shoot IMRT (14.66 %), dynamic MLC (dMLC: 14.53 %), TomoTherapy (9.25 %), and 3.2 % other techniques. Different commercial hard- and software solutions are available for QA, whereas many institutes still develop their own phantoms. Data of 26,779 patients were included in the survey; 44 % were treated using IMRT techniques. IMRT was most frequently used for anal cancer, (whole) craniospinal irradiation, head and neck cancer, prostate cancer, other tumors in the pelvic region, gynecological tumors (except for breast cancer), and brain tumors. DISCUSSION: An estimated 10 % of all patients treated in 2014 with radiation in Germany were included in the survey. It is representative for the members of the AK IMRT. CONCLUSION: IMRT may be on the way to replace other treatment techniques. However, many scientific questions are still open. In particular, it is unclear when the IMRT technique should not be used.
BACKGROUND: Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is frequently used, but there are no data about current frequency regarding specific tumor sites and equipment used for quality assurance (QA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey about IMRT was executed from April to October 2014 by the collaborative IMRT working group (AK IMRT) of the German Association of Medical Physicists (DGMP). RESULTS: A total of 23 German institutions took part in the survey. Most reports came from users working with Elekta, Varian, and Siemens treatment machines, but also from TomoTherapy and BrainLab. Most frequent IMRT technology was volumetric modulated arc therapy (58.37 %: VMAT/"rapid arc"), followed by step-and-shoot IMRT (14.66 %), dynamic MLC (dMLC: 14.53 %), TomoTherapy (9.25 %), and 3.2 % other techniques. Different commercial hard- and software solutions are available for QA, whereas many institutes still develop their own phantoms. Data of 26,779 patients were included in the survey; 44 % were treated using IMRT techniques. IMRT was most frequently used for anal cancer, (whole) craniospinal irradiation, head and neck cancer, prostate cancer, other tumors in the pelvic region, gynecological tumors (except for breast cancer), and brain tumors. DISCUSSION: An estimated 10 % of all patients treated in 2014 with radiation in Germany were included in the survey. It is representative for the members of the AK IMRT. CONCLUSION: IMRT may be on the way to replace other treatment techniques. However, many scientific questions are still open. In particular, it is unclear when the IMRT technique should not be used.
Entities:
Keywords:
German Society for Radiation Oncology (DEGRO); German Society of Medical Physicists (DGMP); Guideline; Radiotherapy, intensity-modulated; Survey
Authors: G Gandaglia; P I Karakiewicz; A Briganti; Q D Trinh; J Schiffmann; Z Tian; S P Kim; P L Nguyen; M Graefen; F Montorsi; M Sun; F Abdollah Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Christopher M Nutting; James P Morden; Kevin J Harrington; Teresa Guerrero Urbano; Shreerang A Bhide; Catharine Clark; Elizabeth A Miles; Aisha B Miah; Kate Newbold; MaryAnne Tanay; Fawzi Adab; Sarah J Jefferies; Christopher Scrase; Beng K Yap; Roger P A'Hern; Mark A Sydenham; Marie Emson; Emma Hall Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: L Jang-Chun; H Jing-Min; J Yee-Min; L Dai-Wei; C Chang-Ming; L Chun-Shu; H Wen-Yen; S Yu-Fu; L Kuen-Tze; F Chao-Yueh; L Cheng-Hsiang; C Hsing-Lung Journal: Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 2.124
Authors: Hans Christiansen; Maximilian Niyazi; Marcel Büttner; Nils Cordes; Tobias Gauer; Daniel Habermehl; Gunther Klautke; Oliver Micke; Matthias Mäurer; Jan Sokoll; Esther Gera Cornelia Troost Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-03-20 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Kilian Schiller; Hanno Martin Specht; Bernhard Haller; Daniela Hallqvist; Michal Devecka; Aaron Becker von Rose; Stephanie Elisabeth Combs; Steffi Pigorsch Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 3.481