Farzaneh Allaveisi1, Amir Nami Moghadam2. 1. Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, PO Box 6617858-411, Iran. farzaneh.allaveisi@muk.ac.ir. 2. Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, PO Box 6617858-411, Iran.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated and compared the performance of the field-in-field (FIF) to that of the four-field box (4FB) technique regarding dosimetric and radiobiological parameters for radiotherapy of esophageal carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with esophageal cancer were selected. For each patient, two treatment plans were created: 4FB and FIF. The parameters compared included the conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), D mean, D max, tumor control probability (TCP), V 20Gy and V 30Gy of the heart and lungs, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and monitor units per fraction (MU/fr). RESULTS: A paired t-test analysis did not show any significant differences (p > 0.05) between the two techniques in terms of the CI and TCP. However, the HI significantly improved when the FIF was applied. D max of the PTV, lung, and spinal cord were also significantly better with the FIF. Moreover, the lung V 20Gy as well as the NTCPs of the lung and spinal cord significantly reduced when the FIF was used, and the MU/fr was significantly decreased. CONCLUSIONS: The FIF showed evident advantages over 4FB: a more homogeneous dose distribution, lower D max values, and fewer required MUs, while it also retained PTV dose conformality. FIF should be considered as a simple technique to use clinically in cases with esophageal malignancies, especially in clinics with no IMRT.
PURPOSE: We evaluated and compared the performance of the field-in-field (FIF) to that of the four-field box (4FB) technique regarding dosimetric and radiobiological parameters for radiotherapy of esophageal carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with esophageal cancer were selected. For each patient, two treatment plans were created: 4FB and FIF. The parameters compared included the conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), D mean, D max, tumor control probability (TCP), V 20Gy and V 30Gy of the heart and lungs, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and monitor units per fraction (MU/fr). RESULTS: A paired t-test analysis did not show any significant differences (p > 0.05) between the two techniques in terms of the CI and TCP. However, the HI significantly improved when the FIF was applied. D max of the PTV, lung, and spinal cord were also significantly better with the FIF. Moreover, the lung V 20Gy as well as the NTCPs of the lung and spinal cord significantly reduced when the FIF was used, and the MU/fr was significantly decreased. CONCLUSIONS: The FIF showed evident advantages over 4FB: a more homogeneous dose distribution, lower D max values, and fewer required MUs, while it also retained PTV dose conformality. FIF should be considered as a simple technique to use clinically in cases with esophageal malignancies, especially in clinics with no IMRT.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dose–volume histogram; Esophageal cancer; Field-in-field; Four-field box (4FB); Normal tissue complication probability
Authors: Ellen D Yorke; Andrew Jackson; Kenneth E Rosenzweig; Louise Braban; Steven A Leibel; C Clifton Ling Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andrew Fong; Regina Bromley; Mardi Beat; Din Vien; Jude Dineley; Graeme Morgan Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Ziad Simon Fawaz; Suzanne Kazandjian; James M Tsui; Dr Slobodan Devic; Magali Lecavalier-Barsoum; Te Vuong; Sara Elakshar; Aurelie Garant; Isabelle Lavoie; Tamin M Niazi Journal: Cureus Date: 2018-07-16