Literature DB >> 26629101

The dosimetric comparison of the radiotherapeutic plans between composite and synchronous planning approaches in sequential IMRT for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Gang Zhou1, Yanze Sun1, Jianjun Qian1, Ye Tian1, Xueguan Lu1.   

Abstract

The aim of present study was to compare the dosimetric differences of the radiotherapeutic plans between synchronous and composite planning approaches in sequential intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Twelve patients with NPC treated by sequential IMRT were enrolled. Two planning approaches were used to design sequential IMRT plan. The first was composite planning approach, in which the initial and boost plans were designed and optimized independently. The second was synchronous planning approach, in which the boost IMRT plan was designed on foundation of the initial IMRT plan, and its optimization would be adjusted based on dose distributions of the initial IMRT plan. Dosimetric comparisons in IMRT plans between composite and synchronous planning approaches were analyzed to evaluate (1) dose coverage, conformity, and homogeneity of the planning target volume (PTV), (2) sparing of organs at risk (OARs), and (3) the number of segments and monitor units (MUs). The results showed that both of the summed plans for the entire treatment course were achieved according to the original planning goals, and the dose coverage, conformity and homogeneity for each PTV was similar. With regard to sparing brain stem, spinal cord and parotid glands, there was no significant difference in the summed plans between two planning approaches. However, the boost IMRT plan by composite planning approach tended to have a higher dose coverage (P = 0.000), conformity (P = 0.000), and homogeneity (P = 0.000) than that of the plan by synchronous planning approach. Moreover, the boost plan by composite planning approach reduced the MUs significantly (P = 0.000). The results indicated that the radiotherapeutic plan by composite planning approach provides better dose coverage, conformity and homogeneity for the PTV in the boost plan than that by synchronous planning approach, and reduced MUs in sequential intensity modulated radiotherapy.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dosimetric comparison; intensity modulated radiotherapy; nasopharyngeal carcinoma; sequential boost

Year:  2015        PMID: 26629101      PMCID: PMC4658990     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med        ISSN: 1940-5901


  13 in total

1.  Assessment of different IMRT boost delivery methods on target coverage and normal-tissue sparing.

Authors:  Nesrin Dogan; Stephanie King; Bahman Emami; Najeeb Mohideen; Nena Mirkovic; Leonid B Leybovich; Anil Sethi
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2003-12-01       Impact factor: 7.038

2.  Radiobiological considerations in the design of fractionation strategies for intensity-modulated radiation therapy of head and neck cancers.

Authors:  R Mohan; Q Wu; M Manning; R Schmidt-Ullrich
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2000-02-01       Impact factor: 7.038

3.  Long-term outcomes of early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy alone.

Authors:  Sheng-Fa Su; Fei Han; Chong Zhao; Chun-Yan Chen; Wei-Wei Xiao; Jia-Xin Li; Tai-Xiang Lu
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Comparative dosimetric study of two strategies of intensity-modulated radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal cancer.

Authors:  Shang-Wen Chen; Shih-Neng Yang; Ji-An Liang; An-Cheng Shiau; Fang-Jen Lin
Journal:  Med Dosim       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 1.482

5.  Simultaneous optimization of sequential IMRT plans.

Authors:  Richard A Popple; Perri B Prellop; Sharon A Spencer; Jennifer F De Los Santos; Jun Duan; John B Fiveash; Ivan A Brezovich
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 6.  The role of biologically effective dose (BED) in clinical oncology.

Authors:  B Jones; R G Dale; C Deehan; K I Hopkins; D A Morgan
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.126

7.  Simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy for locally advanced head-and-neck squamous cell carcinomas: II--clinical results.

Authors:  Andrew Lauve; Monica Morris; Rupert Schmidt-Ullrich; Qiuwen Wu; Radhe Mohan; Olubumni Abayomi; David Buck; Diane Holdford; Kathryn Dawson; Laurence Dinardo; Evan Reiter
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2004-10-01       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  Treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma using intensity-modulated radiotherapy-the national cancer centre singapore experience.

Authors:  Ivan Weng-Keong Tham; Siew Wan Hee; Richard Ming-Chert Yeo; Patemah Bte Salleh; James Lee; Terence Wee-Kiat Tan; Kam Weng Fong; Eu Tiong Chua; Joseph Tien-Seng Wee
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-04-20       Impact factor: 7.038

9.  Nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with reduced-volume intensity-modulated radiation therapy: report on the 3-year outcome of a prospective series.

Authors:  Shaojun Lin; Jianji Pan; Lu Han; Xiuchun Zhang; Xiyi Liao; Jiade J Lu
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-04-11       Impact factor: 7.038

10.  Failure patterns and survival in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with intensity modulated radiation in Northwest China: a pilot study.

Authors:  Jianhua Wang; Mei Shi; Yuesheng Hsia; Shanquan Luo; Lina Zhao; Man Xu; Feng Xiao; Xuehai Fu; Jianping Li; Bin Zhou; Xiaoli Long
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 3.481

View more
  1 in total

1.  A comparison of clinical outcomes between simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) versus sequential boost (SEQ) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Li Jiang; Yong Zhang; Zhendong Yang; Feifei Liang; Jiangtao Wu; Rensheng Wang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 1.889

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.