AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate whether a safe escalation of the dose to the pleural cavity and PET/CT-positive areas in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is possible using helical tomotherapy (HT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We selected 12 patients with MPM. Three planning strategies were investigated. In the first strategy (standard treatment), treated comprised a prescribed median dose to the planning target volume (PTV) boost (PTV1) of 64.5 Gy (range: 56 Gy/28 fractions to 66 Gy/30 fractions) and 51 Gy (range: 50.4 Gy/28 fractions to 54 Gy/30 fractions) to the pleura PTV (PTV2). Thereafter, for each patient, two dose escalation plans were generated prescribing 62.5 and 70 Gy (2.5 and 2.8 Gy/fraction, respectively) to the PTV1 and 56 Gy (2.24 Gy/fraction) to the PTV2, in 25 fractions. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) calculations were used to evaluate the differences between the plans. RESULTS: For all plans, the 95 % PTVs received at least 95 % of the prescribed dose. For all patients, it was possible to perform the dose escalation in accordance with the Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC) constraints for organs at risk (OARs). The average contralateral lung dose was < 8 Gy. NTCP values for OARs did not increase significantly compared with the standard treatment (p > 0.05), except for the ipsilateral lung. For all plans, the lung volume ratio was strongly correlated with the V20, V30, and V40 DVHs of the lung (p < 0.0003) and with the lung mean dose (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that by using HT it is possible to safely escalate the dose delivery to at least 62.5 Gy in PET-positive areas while treating the pleural cavity to 56 Gy in 25 fractions without significantly increasing the dose to the surrounding normal organs.
AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate whether a safe escalation of the dose to the pleural cavity and PET/CT-positive areas in patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is possible using helical tomotherapy (HT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We selected 12 patients with MPM. Three planning strategies were investigated. In the first strategy (standard treatment), treated comprised a prescribed median dose to the planning target volume (PTV) boost (PTV1) of 64.5 Gy (range: 56 Gy/28 fractions to 66 Gy/30 fractions) and 51 Gy (range: 50.4 Gy/28 fractions to 54 Gy/30 fractions) to the pleura PTV (PTV2). Thereafter, for each patient, two dose escalation plans were generated prescribing 62.5 and 70 Gy (2.5 and 2.8 Gy/fraction, respectively) to the PTV1 and 56 Gy (2.24 Gy/fraction) to the PTV2, in 25 fractions. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) calculations were used to evaluate the differences between the plans. RESULTS: For all plans, the 95 % PTVs received at least 95 % of the prescribed dose. For all patients, it was possible to perform the dose escalation in accordance with the Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC) constraints for organs at risk (OARs). The average contralateral lung dose was < 8 Gy. NTCP values for OARs did not increase significantly compared with the standard treatment (p > 0.05), except for the ipsilateral lung. For all plans, the lung volume ratio was strongly correlated with the V20, V30, and V40 DVHs of the lung (p < 0.0003) and with the lung mean dose (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that by using HT it is possible to safely escalate the dose delivery to at least 62.5 Gy in PET-positive areas while treating the pleural cavity to 56 Gy in 25 fractions without significantly increasing the dose to the surrounding normal organs.
Authors: Yee C Ung; Edward Yu; Conrad Falkson; Adam E Haynes; Denise Stys-Norman; William K Evans Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2006-07-03 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Florian Sterzing; Gabriele Sroka-Perez; Kai Schubert; Marc W Münter; Christian Thieke; Peter Huber; Jürgen Debus; Klaus K Herfarth Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2008-01-18 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Marc W Münter; Simeon Nill; Christoph Thilmann; Holger Hof; Angelika Höss; Peter Häring; Mike Partridge; Christian Manegold; Michael Wannenmacher; Jürgen Debus Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: A Abakay; H Komek; O Abakay; Y Palanci; F Ekici; G Tekbas; A C Tanrikulu Journal: Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 3.507
Authors: Edward F Miles; Nicole A Larrier; Christopher R Kelsey; Jessica L Hubbs; Jinli Ma; Sua Yoo; Lawrence B Marks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-02-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tom Treasure; Loic Lang-Lazdunski; David Waller; Judith M Bliss; Carol Tan; James Entwisle; Michael Snee; Mary O'Brien; Gill Thomas; Suresh Senan; Ken O'Byrne; Lucy S Kilburn; James Spicer; David Landau; John Edwards; Gill Coombes; Liz Darlison; Julian Peto Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-06-30 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Martin F Muers; Richard J Stephens; Patricia Fisher; Liz Darlison; Christopher M B Higgs; Erica Lowry; Andrew G Nicholson; Mary O'Brien; Michael Peake; Robin Rudd; Michael Snee; Jeremy Steele; David J Girling; Matthew Nankivell; Cheryl Pugh; Mahesh K B Parmar Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-05-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: E Incerti; S Broggi; A Fodor; M Cuzzocrea; A M Samanes Gajate; P Mapelli; C Fiorino; I Dell'Oca; M Pasetti; M Cattaneo; R Calandrino; L Gianolli; N Di Muzio; Maria Picchio Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christina Leitzen; Timo Wilhelm-Buchstab; Sabina Stumpf; Martina Heimann; David Koch; Christopher Schmeel; Birgit Simon; Susanne Vornholt; Stephan Garbe; Fred Röhner; Felix Schoroth; Hans Heinz Schild; Heinrich Schüller; Thomas Müdder Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 3.621