David Thibouw1, Gilles Truc2, Aurélie Bertaut3, Cédric Chevalier1, Léone Aubignac4, Céline Mirjolet1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Georges François Leclerc Cancer Center, Dijon, France. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Georges François Leclerc Cancer Center, Dijon, France. gtruc@cgfl.fr. 3. Department of Statistics, Georges François Leclerc Cancer Center, Dijon, France. 4. Department of Medical Physics, Georges François Leclerc Cancer Center, Dijon, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We aimed to compare three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for the treatment of glioblastoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study of 220 patients with glioblastoma, treated with 3D-CRT or IMRT, with or without surgery. Dosimetric parameters as well as clinical and survival data for the two techniques were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The median conformity index was 1.53 (range 0-2.69) for 3D-CRT and 1.25 (range 0.97-2.01) for IMRT, p < 10-4. The median homogeneity index was 0.10 (range 0.03-0.32) for 3D-CRT and 0.07 (range 0.03-0.18) for IMRT, p < 10-4. There were significantly fewer acute grade 1 and 2 neurological toxicities in the IMRT group especially for edema (1.3 versus 12.4%, p = 0.017), concentration disorders (6.6 versus 19.9%, p = 0.003) and consciousness disorders (2.6 versus 13.2%, p = 0.002) although IMRT patients had a significantly worse pre-treatment neurological status than 3D-CRT patients. Median survival was 16.0 months (range 11.9-17.8) for IMRT and 13.4 months (range 11.7-15.7) for 3D-CRT patients (p = 0.542). CONCLUSION: IMRT improved target conformity and reduced neurological toxicities for patients with glioblastomas.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We aimed to compare three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for the treatment of glioblastoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study of 220 patients with glioblastoma, treated with 3D-CRT or IMRT, with or without surgery. Dosimetric parameters as well as clinical and survival data for the two techniques were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The median conformity index was 1.53 (range 0-2.69) for 3D-CRT and 1.25 (range 0.97-2.01) for IMRT, p < 10-4. The median homogeneity index was 0.10 (range 0.03-0.32) for 3D-CRT and 0.07 (range 0.03-0.18) for IMRT, p < 10-4. There were significantly fewer acute grade 1 and 2 neurological toxicities in the IMRT group especially for edema (1.3 versus 12.4%, p = 0.017), concentration disorders (6.6 versus 19.9%, p = 0.003) and consciousness disorders (2.6 versus 13.2%, p = 0.002) although IMRT patients had a significantly worse pre-treatment neurological status than 3D-CRT patients. Median survival was 16.0 months (range 11.9-17.8) for IMRT and 13.4 months (range 11.7-15.7) for 3D-CRT patients (p = 0.542). CONCLUSION: IMRT improved target conformity and reduced neurological toxicities for patients with glioblastomas.
Authors: Ulrich Hermanto; Erik K Frija; Mingfwu J Lii; Eric L Chang; Anita Mahajan; Shiao Y Woo Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-01-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ashwatha Narayana; Josh Yamada; Sean Berry; Priti Shah; Margie Hunt; Philip H Gutin; Steven A Leibel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: G Truc; V Bernier; C Mirjolet; C Dalban; F Mazoyer; F Bonnetain; N Blanchard; É Lagneau; P Maingon; G Noël Journal: Cancer Radiother Date: 2016-04-23 Impact factor: 1.018
Authors: Marc D Piroth; Michael Pinkawa; Richard Holy; Gabriele Stoffels; Cengiz Demirel; Charbel Attieh; Hans J Kaiser; Karl J Langen; Michael J Eble Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2009-11-23 Impact factor: 3.481