Dynamic intensity-modulated non-coplanar arc radiotherapy (INCA) for head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To define the potential advantages of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) applied using a non-coplanar dynamic arc technique for the treatment of head and neck cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) was planned in ten patients with head and neck cancer using coplanar IMRT and non-coplanar arc techniques, termed intensity modulated non-coplanar arc EBRT (INCA). Planning target volumes (PTV1) of first order covered the gross tumor volume and surrounding clinical target volume treated with 68-70 Gy, whereas PTV2 covered the elective lymph nodes with 54-55 Gy using a simultaneous internal boost. Treatment plan comparison between IMRT and INCA was carried out using dose-volume histogram and "equivalent uniform dose" (EUD). RESULTS: INCA resulted in better dose coverage and homogeneity of the PTV1, PTV2, and reduced dose delivered to most of the organs at risk (OAR). For the parotid glands, a reduction of the mean dose of 2.9 (+/- 2.0) Gy was observed (p = 0.002), the mean dose to the larynx was reduced by 6.9 (+/- 2.9) Gy (p = 0.003), the oral mucosa by 2.4 (+/- 1.1) Gy (p < 0.001), and the maximal dose to the spinal cord by 3.2 (+/- 1.7) Gy (p = 0.004). The mean dose to the brain was increased by 3.0 (+/- 1.4) Gy (p = 0.002) and the mean lung dose increased by 0.2 (+/- 0.4) Gy (p = 0.87). The EUD suggested better avoidance of the OAR, except for the lung, and better coverage and dose uniformity were achieved with INCA compared to IMRT. CONCLUSION: Dose delivery accuracy with IMRT using a non-coplanar dynamic arc beam geometry potentially improves treatment of head and neck cancer.     

Significant improvement in normal tissue sparing and target coverage for head and neck cancer by means of helical tomotherapy.

PURPOSE: In order to explore the potential of helical Tomotherapy in the treatment of head and neck cancers (HNC), a planning study comparing our routinely delivered IMRT technique (dynamic MLC Varian 600CD Linac, inversely optimised by the Helios/Eclipse system) against two different Tomotherapy planning approaches was performed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the first Tomotherapy plan (TOMO-a), we merely applied the same constraints used for the IMRT-Linac technique; in the second one (TOMO-b), we tried to stress the sparing of parotids and mandible while keeping PTV coverage and spinal cord Dmax similar to their values in the TOMO-a plan. Five patients with locally advanced oropharinx (n=3), hypopharinx (n=1) and larynx (n=1) cancer were considered. For each patient, CTV1 including neck nodes and the tumour was defined and was expanded with a margin of 0.5 cm (PTV1); then, CTV2 including high risk nodes and CTV3 including only T were defined and the corresponding PTV2/PTV3 were defined by a 0.5 cm expansion. IMRT and Tomotherapy planning were optimised to deliver 54 Gy in 30 fractions on PTV1 and 16.2 Gy in 9 fractions on PTV3; in the case a PTV2 was defined, 15 Gy were concomitantly delivered while delivering 16.2 Gy on PTV3. Separated plans for the two phases (Phase 1: first 30 fractions; Phase 2: last 9 fractions) were compared in terms of dose-volume histograms (DVH) and dose statistics on PTVs and OARs. RESULTS: When considering Phase 1, Tomotherapy improved the homogeneity of the dose distribution within PTV1 while delivering the same prescribed dose (assessed to be the median dose to PTV): the fraction of PTV1 receiving more than 95% of the prescribed dose (V95%) increased from 90% (IMRT) to 96-97% for Tomotherapy plans. Dmax within PTV1 decreased from 60.3 Gy (IMRT) to 57.4 Gy (TOMO-a) and 58.7 Gy (TOMO-b). Spinal cord Dmax decreased from 31.6 Gy (IMRT) to 26.5 Gy (TOMO-a) and 24.6 Gy (TOMO-b). No attempts to further reduce spinal cord Dmax were done. Mean dose to the parotids decreased from 26.1 Gy (IMRT) to 25.1 Gy (TOMO-a) and 20.8 Gy (TOMO-b). Mandible was significantly better spared with Tomotherapy: mean dose decreased from 34.9 Gy (IMRT) to 34.0 Gy (TOMO-a) and 30.7 Gy (TOMO-b).When considering phase 2, the average gains (TOMO-b vs IMRT) were more modest and depended on the location of PTV2/PTV3. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings obtained in a sequential approach for HNC suggest that Tomotherapy has the potential to significantly improve the therapeutic ratio with respect to a conventional IMRT delivery method.     

Effectiveness of intensity-modulated and image-guided radiotherapy to spare the mandible from excessive radiation

We would like to assess the effectiveness of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) to decrease the risk of osteoradionecrosis in locally advanced head and neck cancer. We conducted a retrospective study of 83 patients with head and neck cancer undergoing concurrent definitive chemoradiation, post-operative radiotherapy or chemoradiation, or radiotherapy alone with IMRT or IGRT. Mean mandibular dose was, respectively, 43.6Gy and 43.8Gy for the IMRT and IGRT technique. At a median follow-up of 28 months (5-55 months), only one patient developed osteoradionecrosis requiring hyperbaric oxygen. Sharp dose falloff associated with IMRT and IGRT decreased excessive radiation of the mandible and may reduce the risks of osteoradionecrosis.     

Factors associated with radiation-induced nausea and vomiting in head and neck cancer patients treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate factors associated with radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) in the setting of head and neck intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-three patients treated with IMRT for head and neck cancer between 2002 and 2007 comprise the cohort. The majority (79%) were treated with an accelerated altered fractionation scheme, and concurrent chemotherapy was delivered to 23. A retrospective review of factors associated with nausea was performed. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (42%) reported grade 1 acute nausea, and seven patients (16%) reported grade 2 nausea. Factors significant for grade 1-2 nausea on univariate analysis included dose to the dorsal vagal complex of the mid-medulla, younger age, use of a low neck field, and Amifostine use. Only young age retained significance on multivariate analysis. High-grade nausea was associated with use of Amifostine (p=0.003) and concurrent chemotherapy (p=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to previously recognized emetic factors, young age and radiation dose to the dorsal vagal complex of the brainstem may play a role in development of nausea during head and neck IMRT.     

Comparing step-and-shoot IMRT with dynamic helical tomotherapy IMRT plans for head-and-neck cancer

PURPOSE: The goal of this planning study was to compare step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans with helical dynamic IMRT plans for oropharynx patients on the basis of dose distribution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five patients with oropharynx cancer had been previously treated by step-and-shoot IMRT at the University Medical Centre Utrecht, The Netherlands, applying five fields and approximately 60-90 segments. Inverse planning was carried out using Plato, version 2.6.2. For each patient, an inverse IMRT plan was also made using Tomotherapy Hi-Art System, version 2.0, and using the same targets and optimization goals. Statistical analysis was performed by a paired t test. RESULTS: All tomotherapy plans compared favorably with the step-and-shoot plans regarding sparing of the organs at risk and keeping an equivalent target dose homogeneity. Tomotherapy plans in particular realized sharper dose gradients compared with the step-and-shoot plans. The mean dose to all parotid glands (n = 10) decreased on average 6.5 Gy (range, -4 to 14; p = 0.002). The theoretical reduction in normal tissue complication probabilities in favor of the tomotherapy plans depended on the parotid normal tissue complication probability model used (range, -3% to 32%). CONCLUSION: Helical tomotherapy IMRT plans realized sharper dose gradients compared with the clinically applied step-and shoot plans. They are expected to be able to reduce the parotid normal tissue complication probability further, keeping a similar target dose homogeneity.     

Parotid Gland Dose in Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer: Is What You Plan What You Get?

PURPOSE: To quantify the differences between planned and delivered parotid gland and target doses, and to assess the benefits of daily bone alignment for head and neck cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eleven head and neck cancer patients received two CT scans per week with an in-room CT scanner over the course of their radiotherapy. The clinical IMRT plans, designed with 3-mm to 4-mm planning margins, were recalculated on the repeat CT images. The plans were aligned using the actual treatment isocenter marked with radiopaque markers (BB) and bone alignment to the cervical vertebrae to simulate image-guided setup. In-house deformable image registration software was used to map daily dose distributions to the original treatment plan and to calculate a cumulative delivered dose distribution for each patient. RESULTS: Using conventional BB alignment led to increases in the parotid gland mean dose above the planned dose by 5 to 7 Gy in 45% of the patients (median, 3.0 Gy ipsilateral, p = 0.026; median, 1.0 Gy contralateral, p = 0.016). Use of bone alignment led to reductions relative to BB alignment in 91% of patients (median, 2 Gy; range, 0.3-8.3 Gy; 15 of 22 parotids improved). However, the parotid dose from bone alignment was still greater than planned (median, 1.0 Gy, p = 0.007). Neither approach affected tumor dose coverage. CONCLUSIONS: With conventional BB alignment, the parotid gland mean dose was significantly increased above the planned mean dose. Using daily bone alignment reduced the parotid dose compared with BB alignment in almost all patients. A 3- to 4-mm planning margin was adequate for tumor dose coverage.     

食管癌螺旋断层放疗及三维适形调强放疗计划剂量学研究

目的 近年来放射治疗设备不断更新,放疗技术持续发展,肿瘤放疗方式有了更多的选择.本研究通过评估食管癌的螺旋断层放疗(tomotherapy, TOMO)及三维适形调强放疗(intensity modulation radiation therapy, IMRT)的剂量学特性,为临床上食管癌放疗方式的选择提供依据.方法 选取2014-07-13-2015-02-25浙江省肿瘤医院胸部肿瘤放疗科10例食管癌患者,勾画靶区及正常器官后,分别传输至Raystation及TOMO计划系统,给予肿瘤原发灶(PGTV)61.6 Gy/28次,计划靶区(PTV)56.0 Gy/28次,根据RTOG 1106标准限制危及器官(organs at risk, OAR)剂量.分别对靶区的剂量体积直方图(dose volume histogram, DVH)、均匀性指数(homogeneity index, HI)、适形性指数(conformal index CI)和OAR(肺、心脏、脊髓)受照最大剂量及平均剂量进行评估.结果 两种计划都能满足处方剂量要求和危及器官受量限制.TOMO计划中PGTV的中位均匀性指数(HI)为0.057 5,优于IMRT计划的0.073 5, P=0.047.TOMO计划中PTV的中位适形性指数(CI)为0.785,优于IMRT计划的0.682 5, P=0.009.TOMO计划中PGTV的中位最大剂量Dmax为64.9 Gy,明显低于IMRT计划的66.5 Gy, P=0.005;TOMO计划中PTV的中位最大剂量Dmax为64.1 Gy,明显低于IMRT计划的64.9 Gy, P=0.028. TOMO计划的中位总的肺剂量为10.8 Gy,低于IMRT计划的11.9 Gy, P=0.005.TOMO计划的中位总的心脏剂量为22.6 Gy,明显低于IMRT计划的24.3 Gy, P=0.028. TOMO计划的中位脊髓最大剂量为40.2 Gy,明显低于IMRT计划的41.7 Gy, P=0.007.结论 食管癌放疗中TOMO放疗计划对比IMRT放疗计划,具有更好的靶区覆盖适形性及剂量分布均匀性,同时明显减少双肺、心脏及脊髓的受照剂量.     

Comparison of cervical esophagus dose-volumes for three radiotherapy techniques for head and neck cancer

PURPOSE: This study compares the radiation dose-volume of the cervical esophagus during head and neck radiotherapy using three different techniques. METHODS: Treatment plans of 58 patients from 3/04 to 1/06 treated with bilateral head and neck radiotherapy were analyzed retrospectively. A comparison of the cervical esophagus dose with three-field 3D conformal RT (3DRT, n=34), whole-field IMRT (WF-IMRT, n=12), and half-beam IMRT (HB-IMRT, n=12) was performed. The volumes of esophagus receiving > or =50Gy (V50), > or =54Gy (V54) and > or = 60Gy (V60) and lengths receiving circumferential dose > or = 50Gy (L50) and > or = 54Gy (L54) were evaluated. RESULTS: Maximum dose, V54 and L54 were greater for the first 2cm and entire cervical esophagus with WF-IMRT than HB-IMRT or 3DRT. In patients requiring a high match, WF-IMRT was associated with a greater maximum dose, V54 and L54 than HB-IMRT and 3DRT (p<0.05). In the low match group, WF-IMRT was associated with a greater V54 and L54 (p<0.05). Low neck disease, low primary site, and definitive radiotherapy were associated with increased irradiation of the esophagus. CONCLUSION: Treatment of the lower neck with IMRT is associated with increased irradiation to the cervical esophagus, and dose constraints should be included to reduce toxicity.     

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy in advanced head and neck patients treated with intensive chemoradiotherapy: preliminary experience and future directions

We review our recent experience with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and conventional three-dimensional radiation therapy (C3DRT) in advanced head and neck cancer. Sixty-nine patients with Stage IV head and neck cancer (and stage III base of tongue and hypopharynx) enrolled in a Phase II study of definitive chemoradiation; 20 received all or part of their radiation with IMRT. Image-guided set-up, using video subtraction techniques, was used in all patients. Six weekly doses of induction carboplatin (AUC=2) and paclitaxel (135 mg/m2) were followed by alternating weekly chemoradiation to 75 Gy with 1.5 Gy BID fractions, concurrent with paclitaxel (100 mg/m2/week), 5-fluorouracil (600 mg/m2/d) and hydroxyurea (500 mg PO BID). Two consecutive cohorts enrolled, differing in radiation scheme: 75 Gy to gross disease in both, 60 or 54 Gy to first echelon lymphatics and 45 or 39 Gy to second echelon lymphatics. With a median follow-up of 47 months, 3-year overall survival is 68.5% and 3-year locoregional control is 94.0%, with no significant differences between those treated with C3DRT versus IMRT, nor between the two radiation dosing schemes. Actuarial overall survival without tracheostomy or laryngectomy, or without a gastrostomy tube was also similar. Acute mucositis, dermatitis and pain were similar with C3DRT and IMRT. Preliminary data suggests IMRT is well tolerated, and does not compromise locoregional control, indicating that IMRT adequately covers the clinical volume at risk. Building on the present clinical experience, future directions include more directed efforts at reducing toxicity, with better planning software and planning techniques.     

Salvage re-irradiation for recurrent head and neck cancer

PURPOSE: To present a retrospective review of treatment outcomes for recurrent head and neck (HN) cancer patients treated with re-irradiation (re-RT) at a single medical center. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From July 1996-September 2005, 105 patients with recurrent HN cancer underwent re-RT at our institution. Sites included were: the neck (n = 21), nasopharynx (n = 21), paranasal sinus (n = 18), oropharynx (n = 16), oral cavity (n = 9), larynx (n = 10), parotid (n = 6), and hypopharynx (n = 4). The median prior RT dose was 62 Gy. Seventy-five patients received chemotherapy with their re-RT (platinum-based in the majority of cases). The median re-RT dose was 59.4 Gy. In 74 (70%), re-RT utilized intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 35 months, 18 patients were alive with no evidence of disease. The 2-year loco-regional progression-free survival (LRPFS) and overall survival rates were 42% and 37%, respectively. Patients who underwent IMRT, compared to those who did not, had a better 2-year LRPF (52% vs. 20%, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, non-nasopharynx and non-IMRT were associated with an increased risk of loco-regional (LR) failure. Patients with LR progression-free disease had better 2-year overall survival vs. those with LR failure (56% vs. 21%, p < 0.001). Acute and late Grade 3-4 toxicities were reported in 23% and 15% of patients. Severe Grade 3-4 late complications were observed in 12 patients, with a median time to development of 6 months after re-RT. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our data, achieving LR control is crucial for improved overall survival in this patient population. The use of IMRT predicted better LR tumor control. Future aggressive efforts in maximizing tumor control in the recurrent setting, including dose escalation with IMRT and improved chemotherapy, are warranted.     

Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck treated by surgery with or without postoperative radiation therapy: prognostic features of recurrence

PURPOSE: This study sought to review a single-institution experience with the management of adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 1960 and 2004, 140 patients with adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck were treated with definitive surgery. Ninety patients (64%) received postoperative radiation to a median dose of 64 Gy (range, 54-71 Gy). Distribution of T stage was: 26% T1, 28% T2, 20% T3, and 26% T4. Seventy-eight patients (56%) had microscopically positive margins. Median follow-up was 66 months (range, 7-267 months). RESULTS: The 5- and 10-year rate estimates of local control were 88% and 77%, respectively. A Cox proportional hazards model identified T4 disease (p = 0.0001), perineural invasion (p = 0.008), omission of postoperative radiation (p = 0.007), and major nerve involvement (p = 0.02) as independent predictors of local recurrence. Radiation dose lower than 60 Gy (p = 0.0004), T4 disease (p = 0.005), and major nerve involvement (p = 0.02) were predictors of local recurrence among those treated with surgery and postoperative radiation. The 10-year overall survival and distant metastasis-free survival were 64% and 66%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Combined-modality therapy with surgery followed by radiation to doses in excess of 60 Gy should be considered the standard of care for adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck.     

Significant reduction of normal tissue dose by proton radiotherapy compared with three-dimensional conformal or intensity-modulated radiation therapy in Stage I or Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE: To compare dose-volume histograms (DVH) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated by photon or proton radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Dose-volume histograms were compared between photon, including three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and proton plans at doses of 66 Gy, 87.5 Gy in Stage I (n=10) and 60-63 Gy, and 74 Gy in Stage III (n=15). RESULTS: For Stage I, the mean total lung V5, V10, and V20 were 31.8%, 24.6%, and 15.8%, respectively, for photon 3D-CRT with 66 Gy, whereas they were 13.4%, 12.3%, and 10.9%, respectively, with proton with dose escalation to 87.5 cobalt Gray equivalents (CGE) (p=0.002). For Stage III, the mean total lung V5, V10, and V20 were 54.1%, 46.9%, and 34.8%, respectively, for photon 3D-CRT with 63 Gy, whereas they were 39.7%, 36.6%, and 31.6%, respectively, for proton with dose escalation to 74 CGE (p=0.002). In all cases, the doses to lung, spinal cord, heart, esophagus, and integral dose were lower with proton therapy even compared with IMRT. CONCLUSIONS: Proton treatment appears to reduce dose to normal tissues significantly, even with dose escalation, compared with standard-dose photon therapy, either 3D-CRT or IMRT.     

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck cancers with bilateral irradiation of the neck : preliminary results]

PURPOSE: To report preliminary results of a prospective study of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNC) with bilateral irradiation of the neck. PATIENTS AND METHODS: At the Alexis Vautrin Cancer Center, 23 patients have been treated with IMRT for HNC since January 2002-August 2003. The first 10 patients with a minimum follow-up of 3 months were analyzed. All tumors were oropharyngeal. There were four females and six males, with a mean age of 50 years (range 39-66). Stages were I-II in eight and III-IV in two. CTV1 was microscopic disease and N0 neck (prescribed dose : 50 Gy) and CTV2 was macroscopic disease and the volume at risk (prescribed dose: 66-70 Gy). PTV were CTV + 5 mm. Patient's immobilization consisted of a five-point head neck shoulder thermoplastic mask. Set-up verifications were done by semi-automatically matching portal images and digitized reconstructed radiographs. IMRT used dynamic multileaf collimation. Five patients (group A) received 50 Gy IMRT (two post-operative and three with a brachytherapy boost with a mean dose: 27.5 Gy), and five patients (group B) received 66-70 Gy IMRT (four post-operative). Acute and late normal tissue effects were graded according to the RTOG-EORTC radiation morbidity scoring criteria. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 7.4 months (range 3-18.5), no patient died or had loco-regional relapse. The displacements were <4 mm in 98% cases. CTV1 and 2 received 95% of the prescribed dose in 100% of the volume. On average the mean dose to the contralateral parotid was 25.5 Gy for group A vs. 31 Gy for group B (P = 0.09). Mean doses <26 Gy were obtained in three of five patients in group A vs. zero of five patients in group B (P = 0.04). Acute skin toxicities were grade 1 in five patients, grade 2 in four and grade 3 in one. Acute mucositis cases were grade 1 in three patients, grade 2 in five and localized grade 3 in two. At 3 months, 50% of the patients had a grade 0-1 late xerostomia. CONCLUSION: The 26 Gy dose limit constraint to the contralateral parotid was easier to satisfy when IMRT was prescribed at a maximum dose of 50 Gy. Acute toxicity is low. The displacements in the mask indicate that it is possible to define the PTV as CTV + 4 mm. This reduction should decrease the mean dose to the parotids. At 3 months, a 50% rate of grade 0-1 late xerostomia encourages the hope of a very low rate at 2 years.     

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: clinical correlation of dose to the pharyngo-esophageal axis and dysphagia

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantify the dose delivered to the pharyngo-esophageal axis using different intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques for treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma and to correlate this with acute swallowing toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study population consisted of 28 patients treated with IMRT between February 2002 and August 2005: 20 with whole field IMRT (WF-IMRT) and 8 with IMRT fields junctioned with an anterior neck field with central shielding (j-IMRT). Dose to the pharyngo-esophageal axis was measured using dose-volume histograms. Acute swallowing toxicity was assessed by review of dysphagia grade during treatment and enteral feeding requirements. RESULTS: The mean pharyngo-esophageal dose was 55.2 Gy in the WF-IMRT group and 27.2 Gy in the j-IMRT group, p < 0.001. Ninety-five percent (19/20) of the WF-IMRT group developed Grade 3 dysphagia compared with 62.5% (5/8) of the j-IMRT group, p = 0.06. Feeding tube duration was a median of 38 days for the WF-IMRT group compared with 6 days for the j-IMRT group, p = 0.04. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical vigilance must be maintained when introducing new technology to ensure that unanticipated adverse effects do not result. Although newer planning systems can reduce the dose to the pharyngo-esophageal axis with WF-IMRT, the j-IMRT technique is preferred at least in patients with no gross disease in the lower neck.     

Implementation of HybridArc treatment technique in preoperative radiotherapy of rectal cancer: dose patterns in target lesions and organs at risk as compared to helical Tomotherapy and RapidArc

ABSTRACT: Purpose. HybridArc is a novel treatment technique blending aperture-enhanced optimized arcs with discrete IMRT-elements, allowing selection of arcs with a set of static IMRT-beams. This study compared this new technique to helical tomotherapy, and RapidArc, in preoperative radiotherapy of rectal cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twelve rectal cancer patients treated consecutively with Tomotherapy Hi-Art II system were simulated with HybridArc and RapidArc. Treatment plans were designed to deliver a homogeneous dose of 46.0Gy to mesorectum and draining lymph nodes, with a simultaneous-integrated-boost to the primary tumor up to a total dose of 55.2Gy. Planning objectives were 95% of prescribed dose to 95% of PTVs, while minimizing the volume of small bowel receiving more than 15Gy (V15) and the mean bladder dose. Dose gradient towards simultaneous-integrated-boost (GI), calculated by dividing the volume receiving more then 52.4Gy (95% of PTV55.2Gy) to the volume of PTV55.2Gy, was kept below 1.5. Mean beam-on time and amount of MUs were also analyzed. RESULTS: PTVs were adequately covered by all plans. Significant advantage was found for Tomotherapy in sparing small bowel (V15=112.7cm3 SD73.4cm3) compared to RapidArc (133.4cm3 SD75.3cm3) and HybridArc (143.7cm3 SD74.4cm3) (p<0.01). The mean bladder dose was better with RapidArc (20.6Gy SD2.2Gy) compared to HybridArc (24.2Gy SD4.3Gy) and Tomotherapy (23.0Gy SD4.7Gy) (p<0.01). The mean beam-on time was significantly lower (p<0.01) for HybridArc (2.7min SD0.8) and RapidArc (2.5min SD0.5) compared to Tomotherapy (11.0min SD0.7). The total amount of MUs was significantly (p<0.01) lower for RapidArc (547 SD44) compared to HybridArc (949 SD153). CONCLUSIONS: HybridArc is a feasible solution for preoperative RT with a simultaneous-integrated-boost in rectal cancer patients. It achieved similar PTV coverage with significant lower beam-on time, but less efficient in sparing small bowel and bladder compared to Tomotherapy and RapidArc. The added value of HybridArc is that the treatment modality can be implemented on every LINAC equipped with Dynamic-Conform-Arc and IMRT treatment techniques, while maintaining the same QA-schemes.     

Tomotherapy for prostate adenocarcinoma: a report on acute toxicity.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To analyze the impact of Tomotherapy (TOMO) intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) on acute gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity in prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of 55 consecutively treated TOMO patients were reviewed. Additionally a well-matched group of 43 patients treated with LINAC-based step and shoot IMRT (LINAC) was identified. Acute toxicity was scored according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group acute toxicity criterion. RESULTS: The grade 2-3 acute GU toxicity rates for the TOMO vs. LINAC groups were 51% vs. 28% (p=0.001). Acute grade 2 GI toxicity was 25% vs. 40% (p=0.024), with no grade 3 GI toxicity in either group. In univariate analysis, androgen deprivation, prostate volume, pre-treatment urinary toxicity, and prostate dose homogeneity correlated with acute GI and GU toxicity. With multivariate analysis use of Tomotherapy, median bladder dose and bladder dose homogeneity remained significantly correlated with GU toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Acute GI toxicity for prostate cancer is improved with Tomotherapy at a cost of increased acute GU toxicity possibly due to differences in bladder and prostate dose distribution.     

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the management of head and neck cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) represents a potentially significant new advance in the radiotherapeutic treatment of head and neck cancer patients. The capacity of IMRT to produce highly conformal dose distributions affords the opportunity to decrease the spectrum of toxicities associated with head and neck radiation. This review updates recent advances regarding the use of this emerging technology. RECENT FINDINGS: Mature clinical data demonstrating head and neck IMRT safety and efficacy remain relatively limited to date. Recent publications have sought to clarify target selection and delineation. Refinements in target design driven by clinical outcomes are beginning to emerge. Technical aspects of IMRT delivery such as the impact of daily set-up variation, planning methods, and optimal fractionation regimens are progressing. SUMMARY: Stepwise refinement in the practice of IMRT for head and neck cancer patients is advancing worldwide. However, mature clinical data remains relatively limited and specific aspects regarding the practice of head and neck IMRT remain heterogeneous.     

Comparison of IMRT techniques in the radiotherapeutic management of head and neck cancer: is tomotherapy "better" than step-and-shoot IMRT?

Currently, the most common method of delivering intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is through step-and-shoot, segmental multi-leaf collimator (SMLC)-based techniques. Although rotational delivery methods such as helical tomotherapy (HT) have been proposed as offering advantages in the treatment of head and neck cancer, a lack of clinical data exists on its potential utility. This study compared dosimetric, clinical, and quality-of-life endpoints among 149 patients treated by HT and SMLC-IMRT for head and neck cancer. Dosimetric analysis revealed that the use of HT resulted in significant improvements with respect to mean dose (23.5 versus 27.9 Gy, p = 0.03) and V30 (30.1 versus 43.9 Gy, p = 0.01) to the contralateral (spared) parotid gland. However, the incidence of grade 3+ xerostomia in the late setting was 10% and 8% among patients treated by HT and SMLC-IMRT, respectively (p = 0.46). There were no significant differences in any of the quality of life endpoints among patients treated by HT and SMLC-IMRT (p > 0.05, for all). Acknowledging the biases inherent in this retrospective analysis, we found that the dosimetric advantages observed with HT compared to SMLC-IMRT failed to translate into significant improvements in clinical outcome. Prospective studies are needed to further evaluate how HT may affect the therapeutic ratio.     

Global and health-related quality of life after intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck cancer

This study aims to evaluate the current literature regarding the effects of conventional radiation therapy (CRT) versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) on global quality of life (QoL) among patients treated for head and neck cancer. A PubMed literature review was performed. Only articles comparing global QoL scores in head and neck cancer patients treated with CRT versus IMRT were included. Studies were scrutinized for methodology, level of evidence and limitations. Outcomes were evaluated for external validity, level of evidence and applicability. Between 2005 and 2012, 14 eligible studies (six prospective, two randomized controlled trials) were identified. Although all presented data comment on the advantages of IMRT, differences in study design made comparisons difficult. The vast majority of these were also limited by relatively small sample sizes and heterogeneity with respect to patient and treatment-related characteristics. Although more robust evidence is needed in the future, the published data reasonably support the benefits of IMRT as compared with CRT (either 2D or 3D) in improving QoL, beginning at approximately 3–6 months post-treatment, and possibly potentiating with time up to 2 and 3 years.     

Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) decreases treatment-related morbidity and potentially enhances tumor control

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), a new form of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), optimizes the concept of computer-controlled radiation deposition in tumor (target) while sparing adjacent normal structures. A retrospective review was done on the initial 185 patients with tumors in different sites including prostate cancer, head and neck cancer, pediatric tumors, adult brain tumors, and previously irradiated recurrent tumors treated with IMRT.

Preliminary findings indicate that IMRT is a new clinically feasible tool in radiation oncology. Treatment-related morbidity profile was favorable. Tumor response, local control, and the ability to palliate previously irradiated patients are encouraging. Intensity modulated radiation therapy will allow dose escalation, leading to better tumor control.