PURPOSE: To investigate high conformality on target coverage and the ability on creating strict lung dose limitation of intensity-modulated radiation therapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-four radiation therapy plannings were evaluated and compared with dosimetric outcomes of conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Hemithoracal radiation therapy was performed on 12 patients with a fraction of 1.8 Gy to a total dose of 50.4 Gy. All organs at risk were contoured. Radiotherapy plannings were differed according to the technique; conformal radiation therapy was planned with conventionally combined photon-electron fields, and intensity-modulated radiation therapy was planned with 7 to 9 radiation beam angles optimized in inverse planning. Strict dose-volume constraints were applied. RESULTS: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy was statistically superior in target coverage and dose homogeneity (intensity-modulated radiation therapy-planning target volume 95 mean 100%; 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy-planning target volume 95 mean 71.29%, P = .0001; intensity-modulated radiation therapy-planning target volume 105 mean 11.14%; 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy-planning target volume 105 mean 35.69%, P = .001). The dosimetric results of the remaining lung was below the limitations on intensity-modulated radiation therapy planning data (intensity-modulated radiation therapy-lung mean dose mean 7.5 [range: 5.6%-8.5%]; intensity-modulated radiation therapy-lung V5 mean 55.55% [range: 47%-59.9%]; intensity-modulated radiation therapy-lung V20 mean 4.5% [range: 0.5%-9.5%]; intensity-modulated radiation therapy-lung V13 mean 13.43% [range: 4.2%-22.9%]). CONCLUSION: With a complex and large target volume of malignant pleural mesothelioma, intensity-modulated radiation therapy has the ability to deliver efficient tumoricidal radiation dose within the safe dose limits of the remaining lung tissue.
PURPOSE: To investigate high conformality on target coverage and the ability on creating strict lung dose limitation of intensity-modulated radiation therapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-four radiation therapy plannings were evaluated and compared with dosimetric outcomes of conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Hemithoracal radiation therapy was performed on 12 patients with a fraction of 1.8 Gy to a total dose of 50.4 Gy. All organs at risk were contoured. Radiotherapy plannings were differed according to the technique; conformal radiation therapy was planned with conventionally combined photon-electron fields, and intensity-modulated radiation therapy was planned with 7 to 9 radiation beam angles optimized in inverse planning. Strict dose-volume constraints were applied. RESULTS: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy was statistically superior in target coverage and dose homogeneity (intensity-modulated radiation therapy-planning target volume 95 mean 100%; 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy-planning target volume 95 mean 71.29%, P = .0001; intensity-modulated radiation therapy-planning target volume 105 mean 11.14%; 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy-planning target volume 105 mean 35.69%, P = .001). The dosimetric results of the remaining lung was below the limitations on intensity-modulated radiation therapy planning data (intensity-modulated radiation therapy-lung mean dose mean 7.5 [range: 5.6%-8.5%]; intensity-modulated radiation therapy-lung V5 mean 55.55% [range: 47%-59.9%]; intensity-modulated radiation therapy-lung V20 mean 4.5% [range: 0.5%-9.5%]; intensity-modulated radiation therapy-lung V13 mean 13.43% [range: 4.2%-22.9%]). CONCLUSION: With a complex and large target volume of malignant pleural mesothelioma, intensity-modulated radiation therapy has the ability to deliver efficient tumoricidal radiation dose within the safe dose limits of the remaining lung tissue.
Authors: D J Sugarbaker; R M Flores; M T Jaklitsch; W G Richards; G M Strauss; J M Corson; M M DeCamp; S J Swanson; R Bueno; J M Lukanich; E H Baldini; S J Mentzer Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Maria F Chan; Chen S Chui; Yulin Song; Chandra Burman; Ellen Yorke; Cesar Della-Biancia; Kenneth E Rosenzweig; Karen Schupak Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2006-05-15 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: V W Rusch; K Rosenzweig; E Venkatraman; L Leon; A Raben; L Harrison; M S Bains; R J Downey; R J Ginsberg Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 5.209
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: David C Rice; W Roy Smythe; Zhongxing Liao; Thomas Guerrero; Joe Y Chang; Mary F McAleer; Melenda D Jeter; Arlene Correa; Ara A Vaporciyan; H Helen Liu; Ritsuko Komaki; Kenneth M Forster; Craig W Stevens Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-04-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Raja M Flores; Harvey I Pass; Venkatraman E Seshan; Joseph Dycoco; Maureen Zakowski; Michele Carbone; Manjit S Bains; Valerie W Rusch Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2008-02-14 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Hitomi Sudo; Atsushi B Tsuji; Aya Sugyo; Tsuneo Saga; Mika K Kaneko; Yukinari Kato; Tatsuya Higashi Journal: Cancer Sci Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 6.716