PURPOSE: To determine the optimal dose-volume constraint for laryngeal sparing using three commonly employed intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) approaches in patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated to the bilateral neck. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with stage II-IVA oropharynx cancers received definitive radiotherapy with split-field IMRT (SF-IMRT) to the bilateral neck between 2008 and 2013. Each case was re-planned using whole-field IMRT (WF-IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and plan quality metrics and dose to laryngeal structures was evaluated. Two larynx volumes were defined and compared on the current study: the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) larynx as defined per the RTOG 1016 protocol and the MDACC larynx defined as the components of the larynx bounded by the superior and inferior extent of the thyroid cartilage. RESULTS: Target coverage, conformity, and heterogeneity indices were similar in all techniques. The RTOG larynx mean dose was lower with WF-IMRT than SF-IMRT (22.1 vs 25.8 Gy; P < 0.01). The MDACC larynx mean dose was 17.5 Gy ± 5.4 Gy with no differences between the 3 techniques. WF-IMRT and VMAT plans were associated with lower mean doses to the supraglottic larynx (42.1 vs 41.2 vs 54.8 Gy; P < 0.01) and esophagus (18.1 vs 18.2 vs 36 Gy; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Modern whole field techniques can provide effective laryngeal sparing in patients receiving radiotherapy to the bilateral neck for advanced oropharyngeal cancers. SUMMARY: We evaluated laryngeal dose in patients with locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer treated to the bilateral neck using split-field IMRT (SF-IMRT), whole-field IMRT (WF-IMRT) and volumetric arc therapy (VMAT). All three techniques provided good sparing of laryngeal structures and were able to achieve a mean larynx dose < 33 Gy. There were no significant differences in dose to target structures or non-laryngeal organs at risk among techniques.
PURPOSE: To determine the optimal dose-volume constraint for laryngeal sparing using three commonly employed intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) approaches in patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated to the bilateral neck. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with stage II-IVA oropharynx cancers received definitive radiotherapy with split-field IMRT (SF-IMRT) to the bilateral neck between 2008 and 2013. Each case was re-planned using whole-field IMRT (WF-IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and plan quality metrics and dose to laryngeal structures was evaluated. Two larynx volumes were defined and compared on the current study: the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) larynx as defined per the RTOG 1016 protocol and the MDACC larynx defined as the components of the larynx bounded by the superior and inferior extent of the thyroid cartilage. RESULTS: Target coverage, conformity, and heterogeneity indices were similar in all techniques. The RTOG larynx mean dose was lower with WF-IMRT than SF-IMRT (22.1 vs 25.8 Gy; P < 0.01). The MDACC larynx mean dose was 17.5 Gy ± 5.4 Gy with no differences between the 3 techniques. WF-IMRT and VMAT plans were associated with lower mean doses to the supraglottic larynx (42.1 vs 41.2 vs 54.8 Gy; P < 0.01) and esophagus (18.1 vs 18.2 vs 36 Gy; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Modern whole field techniques can provide effective laryngeal sparing in patients receiving radiotherapy to the bilateral neck for advanced oropharyngeal cancers. SUMMARY: We evaluated laryngeal dose in patients with locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer treated to the bilateral neck using split-field IMRT (SF-IMRT), whole-field IMRT (WF-IMRT) and volumetric arc therapy (VMAT). All three techniques provided good sparing of laryngeal structures and were able to achieve a mean larynx dose < 33 Gy. There were no significant differences in dose to target structures or non-laryngeal organs at risk among techniques.
Authors: Adam S Garden; Clifton D Fuller; David I Rosenthal; William N William; Gary B Gunn; Beth M Beadle; Faye M Johnson; William H Morrison; Jack Phan; Steven J Frank; Merrill S Kies; Erich M Sturgis Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-03-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Bouthaina Dabaja; Mohammad R Salehpour; Isaac Rosen; Sam Tung; William H Morrison; K Kian Ang; Adam S Garden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Matthew T Studenski; Voichita Bar-Ad; Joshua Siglin; David Cognetti; Joseph Curry; Madalina Tuluc; Amy S Harrison Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: Hale B Caglar; Roy B Tishler; Megan Othus; Elaine Burke; Yi Li; Laura Goguen; Lori J Wirth; Robert I Haddad; Carl M Norris; Laurence E Court; Donald J Aninno; Marshall R Posner; Aaron M Allen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-05-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Wilko F A R Verbakel; Johan P Cuijpers; Daan Hoffmans; Michael Bieker; Ben J Slotman; Suresh Senan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mehee Choi; Tamer Refaat; Malisa S Lester; Ian Bacchus; Alfred W Rademaker; Bharat B Mittal Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 3.481