BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Treatment with traditional standard field arrangements for patients with head and neck cancer rarely causes myelopathy. Often, initial treatment fields are reduced to avoid the spinal cord after 45 Gy has been delivered and the cord dose that is delivered by 'off-cord' fields is not calculated. To determine a conservative limit to set for the cord dose for conformally-planned field arrangements, the total spinal cord dose delivered with standard opposed lateral fields was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two types of treatment plans were evaluated for 10 patients enrolled on a parotid-sparing protocol for bilateral head and neck treatment, i.e. (1) standard opposed lateral fields, including large initial fields treating nodal volumes to 45 Gy, off-cord fields for an additional 25 Gy and electron nodal boost fields for an additional 5 Gy and (2) complex 3-D treatment planned field geometries with conformal dose distributions (actual treatment fields). Treatment fields for the protocol conformal plans were arranged so that the maximum cord dose was not to exceed 50 Gy. Dose-volume histograms for both types of planned treatments were analyzed. The maximum and minimum dose to the 1 cm3 cord volume receiving the highest dose were reported. RESULTS: The maximum dose to the cord from the standard composite plans was on average 52 Gy, with a range of 48.9-55.9 Gy. This consisted of an additional 6.3 Gy (average) from the scatter and block transmission dose from the off-cord lateral fields above the prescribed 45 Gy. For the conformal plans, the maximum dose was on average 49.4 Gy (which is protocol criteria). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The maximum spinal cord dose of 50 Gy set as a dose constraint for 3-D treatment planning for conformal plans is a comparable dose to that given in standard opposed lateral head and neck treatments and has been determined to be a conservative spinal cord dose limit, which we have applied in our clinic.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Treatment with traditional standard field arrangements for patients with head and neck cancer rarely causes myelopathy. Often, initial treatment fields are reduced to avoid the spinal cord after 45 Gy has been delivered and the cord dose that is delivered by 'off-cord' fields is not calculated. To determine a conservative limit to set for the cord dose for conformally-planned field arrangements, the total spinal cord dose delivered with standard opposed lateral fields was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two types of treatment plans were evaluated for 10 patients enrolled on a parotid-sparing protocol for bilateral head and neck treatment, i.e. (1) standard opposed lateral fields, including large initial fields treating nodal volumes to 45 Gy, off-cord fields for an additional 25 Gy and electron nodal boost fields for an additional 5 Gy and (2) complex 3-D treatment planned field geometries with conformal dose distributions (actual treatment fields). Treatment fields for the protocol conformal plans were arranged so that the maximum cord dose was not to exceed 50 Gy. Dose-volume histograms for both types of planned treatments were analyzed. The maximum and minimum dose to the 1 cm3 cord volume receiving the highest dose were reported. RESULTS: The maximum dose to the cord from the standard composite plans was on average 52 Gy, with a range of 48.9-55.9 Gy. This consisted of an additional 6.3 Gy (average) from the scatter and block transmission dose from the off-cord lateral fields above the prescribed 45 Gy. For the conformal plans, the maximum dose was on average 49.4 Gy (which is protocol criteria). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The maximum spinal cord dose of 50 Gy set as a dose constraint for 3-D treatment planning for conformal plans is a comparable dose to that given in standard opposed lateral head and neck treatments and has been determined to be a conservative spinal cord dose limit, which we have applied in our clinic.
Authors: Daniel Pak; Karen Vineberg; Felix Feng; Randall K Ten Haken; Avraham Eisbruch Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Avraham Eisbruch; Jonathan A Ship; Laura A Dawson; Hyungjin M Kim; Carol R Bradford; Jeffrey E Terrell; Douglas B Chepeha; Theodore N Teknos; Norman D Hogikyan; Yoshimi Anzai; Lon H Marsh; Randall K Ten Haken; Gregory T Wolf Journal: World J Surg Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: M Khan; P Ambady; D Kimbrough; T Shoemaker; S Terezakis; J Blakeley; S D Newsome; I Izbudak Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 3.825