Anna Bandurska-Luque1, Tomasz Piotrowski2, Agnieszka Skrobała2, Adam Ryczkowski3, Krystyna Adamska4, Joanna Kaźmierska5. 1. Radiotherapy Department II, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznań, Poland. 2. Department of Electroradiology, University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland ; Medical Physics Department, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznań, Poland. 3. Medical Physics Department, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznań, Poland. 4. Radiotherapy Department III, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznań, Poland. 5. Department of Electroradiology, University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland ; Radiotherapy Department II, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznań, Poland.
Abstract
AIM: This prospective study aims to assess feasibility of helical tomotherapy (HT) for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) and perform dosimetric comparison of treatment plans for both HT and 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). BACKGROUND: CSI is a challenging procedure. Large PTV size requires field matching due to technical limitations of standard linear accelerators, which cannot irradiate such volumes as a single field. HT could help to avoid these limitations as irradiation of long fields is possible without field matching. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three adults were enrolled from 2009 to 2010. All patients received radiochemotherapy. Treatment plans in prone position for 3DCRT and in supine position for HT were generated. The superior plan was used for patients' irradiation. Plans were compared with the application of DVH, Dx parameters - where x represents a percentage of the structure volume receiving a normalized dose and homogeneity index (HI). RESULTS: All patients received HT irradiation. The treatment was well tolerated. The HT plans resulted in a better dose coverage and uniformity in the PTV: HI were 5.4, 7.8, 6.8 for HT vs. 10.3, 6.6, 10.4 for 3DCRT. For most organs at risk (OARs), the D(V80) was higher for HT than for 3DCRT, whereas D(V5) was lower for HT. CONCLUSIONS: HT is feasible for CSI, and in comparison with 3DCRT it improves PTV coverage. HT reduces high dose volumes of OARs, but larger volumes of normal tissue receive low radiation dose. HT requires further study to establish correlations between dosimetrical findings and clinical outcomes, especially with regard to late sequelae of treatment.
AIM: This prospective study aims to assess feasibility of helical tomotherapy (HT) for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) and perform dosimetric comparison of treatment plans for both HT and 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). BACKGROUND: CSI is a challenging procedure. Large PTV size requires field matching due to technical limitations of standard linear accelerators, which cannot irradiate such volumes as a single field. HT could help to avoid these limitations as irradiation of long fields is possible without field matching. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three adults were enrolled from 2009 to 2010. All patients received radiochemotherapy. Treatment plans in prone position for 3DCRT and in supine position for HT were generated. The superior plan was used for patients' irradiation. Plans were compared with the application of DVH, Dx parameters - where x represents a percentage of the structure volume receiving a normalized dose and homogeneity index (HI). RESULTS: All patients received HT irradiation. The treatment was well tolerated. The HT plans resulted in a better dose coverage and uniformity in the PTV: HI were 5.4, 7.8, 6.8 for HT vs. 10.3, 6.6, 10.4 for 3DCRT. For most organs at risk (OARs), the D(V80) was higher for HT than for 3DCRT, whereas D(V5) was lower for HT. CONCLUSIONS: HT is feasible for CSI, and in comparison with 3DCRT it improves PTV coverage. HT reduces high dose volumes of OARs, but larger volumes of normal tissue receive low radiation dose. HT requires further study to establish correlations between dosimetrical findings and clinical outcomes, especially with regard to late sequelae of treatment.
Authors: Kristoffer Petersson; Maria Gebre-Medhin; Crister Ceberg; Per Nilsson; Per Engström; Tommy Knöös; Elisabeth Kjellén Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-03-26 Impact factor: 6.280
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: David N Louis; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Webster K Cavenee; Peter C Burger; Anne Jouvet; Bernd W Scheithauer; Paul Kleihues Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2007-07-06 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Sun Zong-Wen; Yang Shuang-Yan; Du Feng-Lei; Cheng Xiao-Long; Li Qinglin; Chen Meng-Yuan; Hua Yong-Hong; Jin Ting; Hu Qiao-Ying; Chen Xiao-Zhong; Chen Yuan-Yuan; Chen Ming Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Michal Devecka; Marciana Nona Duma; Jan J Wilkens; Severin Kampfer; Kai Joachim Borm; Stefan Münch; Christoph Straube; Stephanie E Combs Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 4.430