Agnieszka Skrobala1,2, Marta Adamczyk2, Aldona Karczewska-Dzionk3. 1. Electroradiology Department, University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland. 2. Medical Physics Department, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan, Poland. 3. I Radiotherapy Ward, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan, Poland.
Abstract
AIM: To present a proposed gastric cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning protocol for an institution that have not introduced volumetric modulated arc therapy in clinical practice. A secondary aim was to determine the impact of 2DkV set-up corrections on target coverage and organ at risk (OAR). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty consecutive patients were treated with a specially-designed non-coplanar 7-field IMRT technique. The isocenter-shift method was used to estimate the impact of 2DkV-based set-up corrections on the original base plan (BP) coverage. An alternative plan was simulated (SP) by taking into account isocenter shifts. The SP and BP were compared using dose-volume histogram (DVH) plots calculated for the internal target volume (ITV) and OARs. RESULTS: Both plans delivered a similar mean dose to the ITV (100.32 vs. 100.40%), with no significant differences between the plans in internal target coverage (5.37 vs. 4.96%). Similarly, no significant differences were observed between the maximal dose to the spinal cord (67.70 and 67.09%, respectively) and volume received 50% of the prescribed dose of: the liver (62.11 vs. 59.84%), the right (17.62 vs. 18.58%) and left kidney (29.40 vs. 30.48%). Set-up margins (SM) were computed as 7.80 mm, 10.17 mm and 6.71 mm in the left-right, cranio-caudal and anterior-posterior directions, respectively. CONCLUSION: Presented IMRT protocol (OAR dose constraints with selected SM verified by 2DkV verification) for stomach treatment provided optimal dose distribution for the target and the critical organs. Comparison of DVH for the base and the modified plan (which considered set-up uncertainties) showed no significant differences.
AIM: To present a proposed gastric cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning protocol for an institution that have not introduced volumetric modulated arc therapy in clinical practice. A secondary aim was to determine the impact of 2DkV set-up corrections on target coverage and organ at risk (OAR). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty consecutive patients were treated with a specially-designed non-coplanar 7-field IMRT technique. The isocenter-shift method was used to estimate the impact of 2DkV-based set-up corrections on the original base plan (BP) coverage. An alternative plan was simulated (SP) by taking into account isocenter shifts. The SP and BP were compared using dose-volume histogram (DVH) plots calculated for the internal target volume (ITV) and OARs. RESULTS: Both plans delivered a similar mean dose to the ITV (100.32 vs. 100.40%), with no significant differences between the plans in internal target coverage (5.37 vs. 4.96%). Similarly, no significant differences were observed between the maximal dose to the spinal cord (67.70 and 67.09%, respectively) and volume received 50% of the prescribed dose of: the liver (62.11 vs. 59.84%), the right (17.62 vs. 18.58%) and left kidney (29.40 vs. 30.48%). Set-up margins (SM) were computed as 7.80 mm, 10.17 mm and 6.71 mm in the left-right, cranio-caudal and anterior-posterior directions, respectively. CONCLUSION: Presented IMRT protocol (OAR dose constraints with selected SM verified by 2DkV verification) for stomach treatment provided optimal dose distribution for the target and the critical organs. Comparison of DVH for the base and the modified plan (which considered set-up uncertainties) showed no significant differences.
Authors: S Gill; J Thomas; C Fox; T Kron; A Thompson; S Chander; S Williams; K H Tai; G Duchesne; F Foroudi Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Vincenzo Valentini; Francesco Cellini; Bruce D Minsky; Gian Carlo Mattiucci; Mario Balducci; Giuseppe D'Agostino; Elisa D'Angelo; Nicola Dinapoli; Nicola Nicolotti; Chiara Valentini; Giuseppe La Torre Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-07-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: A Yuriko Minn; Annie Hsu; Trang La; Pamela Kunz; George A Fisher; James M Ford; Jeffrey A Norton; Brendan Visser; Karyn A Goodman; Albert C Koong; Daniel T Chang Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Eleftheria Astreinidou; Arjan Bel; Cornelis P J Raaijmakers; Chris H J Terhaard; Jan J W Lagendijk Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038