Atsushi Ohta1, Motoki Kaidu2, Satoshi Tanabe3, Satoru Utsunomiya4, Ryuta Sasamoto4, Katsuya Maruyama1, Kensuke Tanaka1, Hirotake Saito1, Toshimichi Nakano1, Miki Shioi3, Haruna Takahashi3, Naotaka Kushima3, Eisuke Abe1, Hidefumi Aoyama1. 1. Department of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 1-757 Asahimachi-dori, Chuo-ku, Niigata, 951-8510, Japan. 2. Department of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 1-757 Asahimachi-dori, Chuo-ku, Niigata, 951-8510, Japan. kaidu@med.niigata-u.ac.jp. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, Asahimachi-dori, Chuo-ku, Niigata, Japan. 4. School of Health Sciences, Niigata University, 1-757 Asahimachi-dori, Chuo-ku, Niigata, 951-8510, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of a respiratory gating and multifield technique on the dose-volume histogram (DVH) in radiotherapy for esophageal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty patients who underwent four-dimensional computed tomography for esophageal cancer were included. We retrospectively created the four treatment plans for each patient, with or without the respiratory gating and multifield technique: No gating-2-field, No gating-4-field, Gating-2-field, and Gating-4-field plans. We compared the DVH parameters of the lung and heart in the No gating-2-field plan with the other three plans. RESULT: In the comparison of the parameters in the No gating-2-field plan, there are significant differences in the Lung V5Gy, V20Gy, mean dose with all three plans and the Heart V25Gy-V40Gy with Gating-2-field plan, V35Gy, V40Gy, mean dose with No Gating-4-field plan and V30Gy-V40Gy, and mean dose with Gating-4-field plan. The lung parameters were smaller in the Gating-2-field plan and larger in the No gating-4-field and Gating-4-field plans. The heart parameters were all larger in the No gating-2-field plan. CONCLUSION: The lung parameters were reduced by the respiratory gating technique and increased by the multifield technique. The heart parameters were reduced by both techniques. It is important to select the optimal technique according to the risk of complications.
PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of a respiratory gating and multifield technique on the dose-volume histogram (DVH) in radiotherapy for esophageal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty patients who underwent four-dimensional computed tomography for esophageal cancer were included. We retrospectively created the four treatment plans for each patient, with or without the respiratory gating and multifield technique: No gating-2-field, No gating-4-field, Gating-2-field, and Gating-4-field plans. We compared the DVH parameters of the lung and heart in the No gating-2-field plan with the other three plans. RESULT: In the comparison of the parameters in the No gating-2-field plan, there are significant differences in the Lung V5Gy, V20Gy, mean dose with all three plans and the Heart V25Gy-V40Gy with Gating-2-field plan, V35Gy, V40Gy, mean dose with No Gating-4-field plan and V30Gy-V40Gy, and mean dose with Gating-4-field plan. The lung parameters were smaller in the Gating-2-field plan and larger in the No gating-4-field and Gating-4-field plans. The heart parameters were all larger in the No gating-2-field plan. CONCLUSION: The lung parameters were reduced by the respiratory gating technique and increased by the multifield technique. The heart parameters were reduced by both techniques. It is important to select the optimal technique according to the risk of complications.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dosimetry; Esophageal cancer; Multifield; Organ at risk; Respiratory gating
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: Giovanna Gagliardi; Louis S Constine; Vitali Moiseenko; Candace Correa; Lori J Pierce; Aaron M Allen; Lawrence B Marks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Lawrence B Marks; Soren M Bentzen; Joseph O Deasy; Feng-Ming Spring Kong; Jeffrey D Bradley; Ivan S Vogelius; Issam El Naqa; Jessica L Hubbs; Joos V Lebesque; Robert D Timmerman; Mary K Martel; Andrew Jackson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: René W M Underberg; Frank J Lagerwaard; Ben J Slotman; Johan P Cuijpers; Suresh Senan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: George Starkschall; Kenneth M Forster; Kei Kitamura; Alex Cardenas; Susan L Tucker; Craig W Stevens Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-11-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: René W M Underberg; John R van Sörnsen de Koste; Frank J Lagerwaard; Andrew Vincent; Ben J Slotman; Suresh Senan Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2006-03-31 Impact factor: 3.481