Comparison of intensity-modulated postoperative radiotherapy with conventional postoperative conformal radiotherapy for retroperitoneal sarcoma]

External postoperative radiation therapy for retroperitoneal sarcoma is an example of treatment using large fields for complex shaped volumes of irradiation. Prescribed dose is limited by tolerance of adjacent organs at risk (OAR). From a recent case treated by conventional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), we evaluate the benefit of five theoretical IMRT plans. Criteria used are calculated from DVH related to delineated PTV and OAR. IMRT should permit to enhance the prescribed dose without increasing dose in the OAR (especially residual kidney, spinal cord and small bowel). This theoretical study show the feasibility of a dose escalation from a treatment dose of 45 Gy delivered by 3D-CRT up to a planning dose of 54 Gy calculated by IMRT with: for the PTV: an improvement of the dose homogeneity about 5% (range 2-6%) and moreover the coverage factor (CF) about 13% (range 9-16%); for the OAR: an improvement of the protection factor (PF) about 20% (range 11-24%); and thus an improved conformity index (CI = CF x PF) about 25% (range 15-32%).     

A four-dimensional CT-based evaluation of techniques for gastric irradiation

PURPOSE: To evaluate three-dimensional conformal (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated (IMRT) and respiration-gated radiotherapy (RGRT) techniques for gastric irradiation for target coverage and minimization of renal doses. All techniques were four-dimensional (4D)-CT based, incorporating the intrafractional mobility of the target volume and organs at risk (OAR). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The stomach, duodenal C-loop, and OAR (kidneys, liver, and heart) were contoured in all 10 phases of planning 4D-CT scans for five patients who underwent abdominal radiotherapy. Planning target volumes (PTVs) encompassing all positions of the stomach (PTV(all phases)) were generated. Three respiratory phases for RGRT in inspiration and expiration were identified, and corresponding PTV(inspiration) and PTV(expiration) and OAR volumes were created. Landmark-based fields recommended for the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 99-04 study protocol were simulated to assess PTV coverage. IMRT and 3D-CRT planning with and without additional RGRT planning were performed for all PTVs, and corresponding dose volume histograms were analyzed. RESULTS: Use of landmark-based fields did not result in full geometric coverage of the PTV(all phases) in any patient. IMRT significantly reduced mean renal doses compared with 3D-CRT (15.0 Gy +/- 0.9 Gy vs. 20.1 Gy +/- 9.3 Gy and 16.6 Gy +/- 1.5 Gy vs. 32.6 Gy +/- 7.1 Gy for the left and right kidneys, respectively; p = 0.04). No significant increase in renal sparing was seen when adding RGRT to either 3D-CRT or IMRT. Tolerance doses to the other OAR were not exceeded. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized field margins are essential for gastric irradiation. IMRT plans significantly reduce renal doses, but the benefits of RGRT in gastric irradiation appear to be limited.     

Pilot study of conformal intensity modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer]

PURPOSE:- To report our experience on treatment planning and acute toxicity in 16 patients suffering from clinically localized prostate cancer treated with high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: - Between March 2001 and October 2002, 16 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with IMRT. Treatment planning included an inverse-planning approach, and the desired beam intensity profiles were delivered by dynamic multileaf collimation. All patients received the entire treatment course with IMRT to a prescribed dose of 78 Gy. All IMRT treatment plans were compared with a theoretical conventional three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). Acute lower gastro-intestinal (GI) and genito-urinary (GU) toxicity was evaluated in all patients and graded according to the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0 (CTCAE v. 3.0). A relationship between dose volume and clinical toxicity was evaluated. RESULTS: - Ninety-five percent of the PTV2 received more than 76 Gy using IMRT or 3D-CRT with no difference between both methods. The dose-volume histogram mean obtained for the PTV2 was not different between IMRT and 3D-CRT. IMRT improved homogeneity of the delivered dose to the PTV2 as compared with 3D-CRT (7.5 vs 9%, respectively). Ninety-five percent of the PTV1 received 5 Gy more using IMRT with protection of the bladder and the rectum walls. The benefit was considered below 75 and 70 Gy for the wall of the bladder and the rectum, respectively. Grade 2 GI and GU toxicity was observed in four (25%) and five (31%) patients, respectively. No grade 3 toxicity was observed. There was a trend towards a relationship between the mean rectal dose and acute rectal toxicity but without statistical significant difference (P =0.09). CONCLUSION: - Dose escalation with IMRT is feasible with no grade 3 or higher acute GI or GU toxicity. Examination of a larger cohort and longer-term follow-up are warranted in the future.     

Benefit of using biologic parameters (EUD and NTCP) in IMRT optimization for treatment of intrahepatic tumors

PURPOSE: To investigate whether intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), optimized using the generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models, can increase the safe dose to intrahepatic tumors compared with three-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT). A secondary objective was to investigate the optimal beam arrangement for liver IMRT plans. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Planning CT data of 15 patients with intrahepatic tumors, previously treated with 3D-CRT, were used as input. The dose delivered using 3D-CRT had been limited either by tolerance of adjacent organs, which were close to, or overlapped with, the planning target volume (PTV; overlap cases, n = 8), or liver toxicity (nonoverlap, n = 7). IMRT plans were created using the gEUD to maximize the dose across the PTV and the NTCP to maintain the organ-at-risk toxicity to that of the conformal plan. Increased heterogeneity was allowed across the PTV in overlap cases, without compromising the minimal PTV dose of the conformal plan and restricting the maximal dose to within 110% of the mean. Three different beam arrangements were used for each case: seven-field equidistant axial, six-field noncoplanar (predominantly right-sided beams), and a reproduction of the conformal gantry angles. gEUDs were also computed and used for evaluation of the plans (regardless of planning technique) to reflect the response of both high- and low-grade tumors. The IMRT plan that allowed the greatest gEUD across the PTV was used in the comparison with the 3D-CRT plan. RESULTS: The use of IMRT significantly increased the maximal gEUD achievable across the PTV compared with the 3D-CRT plans. This was the case for the assumptions of both high- and low-grade tumors, irrespective of the tumor position within the liver. The mean gEUD increase was 11 Gy (high grade) and 18.0 Gy (low grade) for overlap cases (p = 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively) and 10 Gy for nonoverlap cases (p = 0.020). When comparing the IMRT beam arrangements, gEUDs were considered equivalent if they differed by less than one fraction (1.5 Gy). In overlap cases (n = 8), an equivalent "best" gEUD value was obtained in 3, 5, and 7 cases for the original conformal angle, seven-field axial, and six-field noncoplanar plan, respectively. The corresponding results were 5, 2, and 3 in the cases without an overlap (n = 7). CONCLUSION: We have successfully used mathematical/biologic models directly as cost functions within the optimizing process to produce IMRT plans that maximize the gEUD while maintaining compliance with a well-defined protocol for the treatment of intrahepatic cancer. For both PTV-organ-at-risk overlap and nonoverlap situations, IMRT has the capacity to improve the maximal dose achievable across the PTV, expressed in terms of the gEUD. The use of multiple noncoplanar beams appears to confer an advantage over fewer beams in cases with PTV-organ-at-risk overlap. When liver toxicity is the dose-limiting factor, high gEUD values are obtained most frequently when the field arrangement is chosen to provide the shortest possible transhepatic path length.     

Assessment of extended-field radiotherapy for stage IIIC endometrial cancer using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and helical tomotherapy

PURPOSE: To perform a dosimetric comparison of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and helical tomotherapy (HT) plans for pelvic and para-aortic RT in postoperative endometrial cancer patients; and to evaluate the integral dose (ID) received by critical structures within the radiation fields. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We selected 10 patients with Stage IIIC endometrial cancer. For each patient, three plans were created with 3D-CRT, IMRT, and HT. The IMRT and HT plans were both optimized to keep the mean dose to the planning target volume (PTV) the same as that with 3D-CRT. The dosimetry and ID for the critical structures were compared. A paired two-tailed Student t test was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Compared with the 3D-CRT plans, the IMRT plans resulted in lower IDs in the organs at risk (OARs), ranging from -3.49% to -17.59%. The HT plans showed a similar result except that the ID for the bowel increased 0.27%. The IMRT and HT plans both increased the IDs to normal tissue (see Table 1 and text for definition), pelvic bone, and spine (range, 3.31-19.7%). The IMRT and HT dosimetry showed superior PTV coverage and better OAR sparing than the 3D-CRT dosimetry. Compared directly with IMRT, HT showed similar PTV coverage, lower Ids, and a decreased dose to most OARs. CONCLUSION: Intensity-modulated RT and HT appear to achieve excellent PTV coverage and better sparing of OARs, but at the expense of increased IDs to normal tissue and skeleton. HT allows for additional improvement in dosimetry and sparing of most OARs.     

调强放射治疗在子宫颈癌治疗中的剂量学分析

 目的　比较调强放疗（IMRT）、三维适形放疗（3D-CRT）在子宫颈癌放疗中危及器官（OAR）的剂量学差异。方法　对36例子宫颈癌患者均同时制定IMRT放疗计划和3D-CRT放疗计划,临床靶区（CTV）包括子宫、子宫颈、阴道等原发肿瘤区域及其以下的淋巴结引流区域。淋巴结引流区的勾画主要以盆腔伴行血管外放1.0 cm 得到,闭孔淋巴结从骨盆内缘内外扩1.8 cm,CTV不包括骨盆组织。比较计划靶区（PTV）在45 Gy和50 Gy情况下各敏感组织的受照剂量-体积情况。PTV由CTV 边界在三维头脚方向外放1.0 cm,其他方向外放0.7 cm得到。结果　通过剂量体积直方图比较两组计划敏感组织的受照体积变化,在处方剂量45 Gy剂量时,30、40、45 Gy的敏感组织剂量体积IMRT计划均优于3D-CRT计划。在盆壁淋巴结引流区剂量达到50 Gy时,IMRT计划敏感组织受量亦优于45 Gy时3D-CRT计划。结论　子宫颈癌IMRT可以使周围OAR得到较好的保护,具备临床应用的剂量学优势。     

Is intensity-modulated radiotherapy better than conventional radiation treatment and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for mediastinal masses in patients with Hodgkin’s disease,and is there a role for beam orientation optimization and dose constraints assigned to virtual volumes?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the role of beam orientation optimization and the role of virtual volumes (VVs) aimed at protecting adjacent organs at risk (OARs), and to compare various intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) setups with conventional treatment with anterior and posterior fields and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with mediastinal masses in Hodgkin's disease were treated with combined modality therapy (three to six cycles of adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine [ABVD] before radiation treatment). Contouring and treatment planning were performed with Somavision and CadPlan Helios (Varian Systems, Palo Alto, CA). The gross tumor volume was determined according to the prechemotherapy length and the postchemotherapy width of the mediastinal tumor mass. A 10-mm isotropic margin was added for the planning target volume (PTV). Because dose constraints assigned to OARs led to unsatisfactory PTV coverage, VVs were designed for each patient to protect adjacent OARs. The prescribed dose was 40 Gy to the PTV, delivered according to guidelines from International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements Report No. 50. Five different IMRT treatment plans were compared with conventional treatment and 3D-CRT. RESULTS: Beam orientation was important with respect to the amount of irradiated normal tissues. The best compromise in terms of PTV coverage and protection of normal tissues was obtained with five equally spaced beams (5FEQ IMRT plan) using dose constraints assigned to VVs. When IMRT treatment plans were compared with conventional treatment and 3D-CRT, dose conformation with IMRT was significantly better, with greater protection of the heart, coronary arteries, esophagus, and spinal cord. The lungs and breasts in women received a slightly higher radiation dose with IMRT compared with conventional treatments. The greater volume of normal tissue receiving low radiation doses could be a cause for concern. CONCLUSIONS: The 5FEQ IMRT plan with dose constraints assigned to the PTV and VV allows better dose conformation than conventional treatment and 3D-CRT, notably with better protection of the heart and coronary arteries. Of concern is the "spreading out" of low doses to the rest of the patient's body.     

A dosimetric analysis of dose escalation using two intensity-modulated radiation therapy techniques in locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma

PURPOSE: To perform an analysis of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), sequential boost intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRTs), and integrated boost IMRT (IMRTi) for dose escalation in unresectable pancreatic carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Computed tomography images from 15 patients were used. Treatment plans were generated using 3D-CRT, IMRTs, and IMRTi for dose levels of 54, 59.4, and 64.8 Gy. Plans were analyzed for target coverage, doses to liver, kidneys, small bowel, and spinal cord. RESULTS: Three-dimensional-CRT exceeded tolerance to small bowel in 1 of 15 (6.67%) patients at 54 Gy, and 4 of 15 (26.7%) patients at 59.4 and 64.8 Gy. 3D-CRT exceeded spinal cord tolerance in 1 of 15 patients (6.67%) at 59.4 Gy and liver constraints in 1 of 15 patients (6.67%) at 64.8 Gy; no IMRT plans exceeded tissue tolerance. Both IMRT techniques reduced the percentage of total kidney volume receiving 20 Gy (V20), the percentage of small bowel receiving 45 Gy (V45), and the percentage of liver receiving 35 Gy (V35). IMRTi appeared superior to IMRTs in reducing the total kidney V20 (p < 0.0001), right kidney V20 (p < 0.0001), and small bowel V45 (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Sequential boost IMRT and IMRTi improved the ability to achieve normal tissue dose goals compared with 3D-CRT. IMRTi allowed dose escalation to 64.8 Gy with acceptable normal tissue doses and superior dosimetry compared with 3D-CRT and IMRTs.     

Treatment planning with protons for pediatric retinoblastoma,medulloblastoma, and pelvic sarcoma: How do protons compare with other conformal techniques?

PURPOSE: To calculate treatment plans and compare the dose distributions and dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for photon three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), electron therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and standard (nonintensity modulated) proton therapy in three pediatric disease sites. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The tumor volumes from 8 patients (3 retinoblastomas, 2 medulloblastomas, and 3 pelvic sarcomas) were studied retrospectively to compare DVHs from proton therapy with 3D-CRT, electron therapy, and IMRT. In retinoblastoma, several planning techniques were analyzed: A single electron appositional beam was compared with a single 3D-CRT lateral beam, a 3D-CRT anterior beam paired with a lateral beam, IMRT, and protons. In medulloblastoma, three posterior fossa irradiation techniques were analyzed: 3D-CRT, IMRT, and protons. Craniospinal irradiation (which consisted of composite plans of both the posterior fossa and craniospinal components) was also evaluated, primarily comparing spinal irradiation using 3D-CRT electrons, 3D-CRT photons, and protons. Lastly, in pelvic sarcoma, 3D-CRT, IMRT, and proton plans were assessed. RESULTS: In retinoblastoma, protons resulted in the best target coverage combined with the most orbital bone sparing (10% was the mean orbital bone volume irradiated at > or =5 Gy for protons vs. 25% for 3D-CRT electrons, 69% for IMRT, 41% for a single 3D lateral beam, 51% for a 3D anterolateral beam with a lens block, and 65% for a 3D anterolateral beam without a lens block). A single appositional electron field was the next best technique followed by other planning approaches. In medulloblastoma, for posterior fossa and craniospinal irradiation, protons resulted in the least dose to the cochlea (for only posterior fossa irradiation at > or =20 Gy, 34% was the mean cochlear volume irradiated for protons, 87% for IMRT, 89% for 3D-CRT) and hypothalamus-pituitary axis (for only posterior fossa irradiation at > or =10 Gy, 21% was the mean hypothalamus-pituitary volume irradiated for protons, 81% for IMRT, 91% for 3D-CRT); additional dose reductions to the optic chiasm, eyes, vertebrae, mandible, thyroid, lung, kidneys, heart, and liver were seen. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy appeared to be the second best technique for posterior fossa irradiation. For spinal irradiation 3D-CRT electrons were better than 3D-CRT photons in sparing dose to the thyroid, heart, lung, kidney, and liver. With pelvic sarcoma, protons were superior in eliminating any dose to the ovaries (0% of mean ovarian volume was irradiated at > or =2 Gy with protons) and to some extent, the pelvic bones and vertebrae. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy did show more bladder dose reduction than the other techniques in pelvic sarcoma irradiation. CONCLUSIONS: In the diseases studied, using various techniques of 3D-CRT, electrons, IMRT, and protons, protons are most optimal in treating retinoblastomas, medulloblastomas (posterior fossa and craniospinal), and pelvic sarcomas. Protons delivered superior target dose coverage and sparing of normal structures. As dose-volume parameters are expected to correlate with acute and late toxicity, proton therapy should receive serious consideration as the preferred technique for the treatment of pediatric tumors.     

Dosimetric Evaluation of 3-D Conformal and Intensitymodulated Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer after Conservative Surgery

Background: Breast cancers are becoming more frequently diagnosed at early stages with improved longterm outcomes. Late normal tissue complications induced by radiotherapy must be avoided with new breastradiotherapy techniques being developed. The aim of the study was to compare dosimetric parameters of planningtarget volume (PTV) and organs at risk between conformal (CRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy(IMRT) after breast-conserving surgery. Materials and Methods: A total of 20 patients with early stage leftbreast cancer received adjuvant radiotherapy after conservative surgery, 10 by 3D-CRT and 10 by IMRT, witha dose of 50 Gy in 25 sessions. Plans were compared according to dose-volume histogram analyses in terms ofPTV homogeneity and conformity indices as well as organs at risk dose and volume parameters. Results: The HIand CI of PTV showed no difference between 3D-CRT and IMRT, V95 gave 9.8% coverage for 3D-CRT versus99% for IMRT, V107 volumes were recorded 11% and 1.3%, respectively. Tangential beam IMRT increasedvolume of ipsilateral lung V5 average of 90%, ipsilateral V20 lung volume was 13%, 19% with IMRT and3D-CRT respectively. Patients treated with IMRT, heart volume encompassed by 60% isodose (30 Gy) reducedby average 42% (4% versus 7% with 3D-CRT), mean heart dose by average 35% (495cGy versus 1400 cGywith 3D-CRT). In IMRT minimal heart dose average is 356 cGy versus 90cGy in 3D-CRT. Conclusions: IMRTreduces irradiated volumes of heart and ipsilateral lung in high-dose areas but increases irradiated volumes inlow-dose areas in breast cancer patients treated on the left side.     

子宫颈癌术后辅助性放疗不同照射技术临床比较研究

目的 子宫颈癌术后病理存在高危因素的患者,术后辅助放疗可提高疗效,改善预后.常用的放疗技术有调强放射治疗(intensity modulated radiotherapy,IMRT)、三维适形放疗(three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy,3D-CRT)和常规放疗(conventional radiotherapy,CRT),本研究旨在比较这3种放疗技术的剂量学、毒副作用、疗效及生存情况的差异,从而找出一种更佳的放疗方案.方法 选取2009-01-10-2015-07-10临沂市肿瘤医院接受放疗的341例宫颈癌术后存在高危因素患者,分为IMRT组患者128例、3D-CRT组患者77例和CRT组患者136例.IMRT组PTV 50.4~54 Gy,3D-CRT组PTV45~50.4 Gy,CRT组处方剂量DT41.4~45 Gy.体外放疗同时给予化疗.随机选取10例患者重新制定IMRT计划、3D-CRT计划和CRT计划.采用SPSS 22.0统计软进行数据分析,比较危及器官(organ at risk,OAR)受照射剂量、靶区剂量、急慢性毒副作用、疗效及生存情况.结果 IMRT计划、3D-CRT计划和CRT计划的OAR受照射剂量差异有统计学意义(脊髓F=1 070.038,P<0.001;股骨头F=103.277,P<0.001;小肠F=208.677,V=13.776,P<0.001;膀胱F=303.481,V=13.330,P<0.001;直肠F=230.452,V=13.272,P<0.001.3组患者的靶区剂量差异有统计学意义,χ2=293.059,P<0.001.IMRT组与3D-CRT组比较,Z=-11.096,P<0.001;IMRT组与CRT组比较,Z=-14.281,P<0.001;3D-CRT组与CRT组比较,Z=-12.401,P<0.001,差异均有统计学意义.3组的急性消化道反应(χ2=11.848,P=0.003)、泌尿系统反应(χ2=10.390,P=0.006)、骨髓抑制(χ2=14.154,P=0.001)、慢性消化道反应(χ2=19.242,P<0.001)、泌尿系统反应(χ2=15.670,P<0.001)差异均有统计学意义.3组靶区内外转移率比较显示,IMRT组靶区内复发率有降低趋势,但无统计学意义(χ2=5.327,P=0.070),靶区外转移率差异无统计学意义,χ2=1.370,P=0.504.3组无瘤生存期(disease-free survival,DFS)差异无统计学意义(P=0.054),其中IMRT组较CRT组明显提高(P=0.013),IMRT组较3D-CRT组差异无统计学意义(P=0.123),3D-CRT组较CRT组差异无统计学意义(P=0.532).3组总生存期(overall survival,OS)差异有统计学意义(P=0.024),其中IMRT组OS较CRT组明显提高(P=0.008), IMRT组较3D-CRT组差异无统计学意义(P=0.259),3D-CRT组较CRT组差异无统计学意义,P=0.213.将宫旁受侵、淋巴转移、深肌层受侵、脉管癌栓、靶区内外转移进行多因素分析,深肌层受侵是患者独立预后不良因素,P=0.047,HR=2.362,95%CI为1.013~5.508.结论 对宫颈癌术后具有不良预后因素患者,IMRT可获得理想的剂量分布,IMRT技术与其他技术相比具有明显剂量学优势,OAR受照射剂量降低,靶区剂量明显提高,毒副作用减少,靶区内复发率有降低趋势,总生存率提高.     

Potential for reduced toxicity and dose escalation in the treatment of inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer: a comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), 3D conformal radiation, and elective nodal irradiation

PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate four different techniques of radiation therapy (RT) used to treat non-small-cell lung cancer and to determine their efficacy in meeting multiple normal-tissue constraints while maximizing tumor coverage and achieving dose escalation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Treatment planning was performed for 18 patients with Stage I to IIIB inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer using four different RT techniques to treat the primary lung tumor +/- the hilar/mediastinal lymph nodes: (1) Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), (2) Optimized three-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT) using multiple beam angles, (3) Limited 3D-CRT using only 2 to 3 beams, and (4) Traditional RT using elective nodal irradiation (ENI) to treat the mediastinum. All patients underwent virtual simulation, including a CT scan and (18)fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan, fused to the CT to create a composite tumor volume. For IMRT and 3D-CRT, the target included the primary tumor and regional nodes either > or =1.0 cm in short-axis dimension on CT or with increased uptake on PET. For ENI, the target included the primary tumor plus the ipsilateral hilum and mediastinum from the inferior head of the clavicle to at least 5.0 cm below the carina. The goal was to deliver 70 Gy to > or =99% of the planning target volume (PTV) in 35 daily fractions (46 Gy to electively treated mediastinum) while meeting multiple normal-tissue dose constraints. Heterogeneity correction was applied to all dose calculations (maximum allowable heterogeneity within PTV 30%). Pulmonary and esophageal constraints were as follows: lung V(20) < or =25%, mean lung dose < or =15 Gy, esophagus V(50) < or =25%, mean esophageal dose < or =25 Gy. At the completion of all planning, the four techniques were contrasted for their ability to achieve the set dose constraints and deliver tumoricidal RT doses. RESULTS: Requiring a minimum dose of 70 Gy within the PTV, we found that IMRT was associated with a greater degree of heterogeneity within the target and, correspondingly, higher mean doses and tumor control probabilities (TCPs), 7%-8% greater than 3D-CRT and 14%-16% greater than ENI. Comparing the treatment techniques in this manner, we found only minor differences between 3D-CRT and IMRT, but clearly greater risks of pulmonary and esophageal toxicity with ENI. The mean lung V(20) was 36% with ENI vs. 23%-25% with the three other techniques, whereas the average mean lung dose was approximately 21.5 Gy (ENI) vs. 15.5 Gy (others). Similarly, the mean esophagus V(50) was doubled with ENI, to 34% rather than 15%-18%. To account for differences in heterogeneity, we also compared the techniques giving each plan a tumor control probability equivalent to that of the optimized 3D-CRT plan delivering 70 Gy. Using this method, IMRT and 3D-CRT offered similar results in node-negative cases (mean lung and esophageal normal-tissue complication probability [NTCP] of approximately 10% and 2%-7%, respectively), but ENI was distinctly worse (mean NTCPs of 29% and 20%). In node-positive cases, however, IMRT reduced the lung V(20) and mean dose by approximately 15% and lung NTCP by 30%, compared to 3D-CRT. Compared to ENI, the reductions were 50% and >100%. Again, for node-positive cases, especially where the gross tumor volume was close to the esophagus, IMRT reduced the mean esophagus V(50) by 40% (vs. 3D-CRT) to 145% (vs. ENI). The esophageal NTCP was at least doubled converting from IMRT to 3D-CRT and tripled converting from IMRT to ENI. Finally, the total number of fractions for each plan was increased or decreased until all outlined normal-tissue constraints were reached/satisfied. While meeting all constraints, IMRT or 3D-CRT increased the deliverable dose in node-negative patients by >200% over ENI. In node-positive patients, IMRT increased the deliverable dose 25%-30% over 3D-CRT and 130%-140% over ENI. The use of 3D-CRT without IMRT increased the deliverable RT dose >80% over ENI. Using a limited number of 3D-CRT beams decreased the lung V(20), mean dose, and NTCP in node-positive patients. CONCLUSION: The use of 3D-CRT, particul mean dose, and NTCP in node-positive patients.The use of 3D-CRT, particularly with only 3 to 4 beam angles, has the ability to reduce normal-tissue toxicity, but has limited potential for dose escalation beyond the current standard in node-positive patients. IMRT is of limited additional value (compared to 3D-CRT) in node-negative cases, but is beneficial in node-positive cases and in cases with target volumes close to the esophagus. When meeting all normal-tissue constraints in node-positive patients, IMRT can deliver RT doses 25%-30% greater than 3D-CRT and 130%-140% greater than ENI. Whereas the possibility of dose escalation is severely limited with ENI, the potential for pulmonary and esophageal toxicity is clearly increased.     

三维适形与调强放疗技术在胃癌术后放疗中的剂量学比较

目的比较胃癌放疗中三维适形放疗(3DCRT)和调强放疗(IMRT)技术的剂量学差异,为临床应用提供参考。方法采用3DCRT治疗的5例胃癌术后患者,放疗时使用了主动呼吸门控技术,以减少呼吸引起的器官运动。IMRT计划采用7个共面等间距野,仅用于剂量学比较。患者靶区设定的处方剂量为至少95%计划靶体积(PTV)接受45.00 Gy,至少99%PTV接受42.75 Gy。根据积分剂量体积直方图(DVH)比较PTV受量和相关正常器官的受量差异和剂量分布。结果与IMRT相比3DCRT的剂量均匀性和适形度略差,但两者在PTV受量上剂量相似。对左、右肾受15 Gy剂量的体积百分比(V_(15))而言,3DCRT好于IMRT;从正常肝的平均受量及V_(30)上看,IMRT稍优于优势;在脊髓的受量上两者相似。结论3DCRT技术在主动呼吸门控辅助下,PTV和部分正常器官的受量上可接近或者达到采用相等野数的IMRT的结果。     

Persistently better treatment planning results of intensity-modulated (IMRT) over conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in prostate cancer patients with significant variation of clinical target volume and/or organs-at-risk

PURPOSE: To compare the dose coverage of planning and clinical target volume (PTV, CTV), and organs-at-risk (OAR) between intensity-modulated (3D-IMRT) and conventional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) before and after internal organ variation in prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We selected 10 patients with clinically significant interfraction volume changes. Patients were treated with 3D-IMRT to 80 Gy (minimum PTV dose of 76 Gy, excluding rectum). Fictitious, equivalent 3D-CRT plans (80 Gy at isocenter, with 95% isodose (76 Gy) coverage of PTV, with rectal blocking above 76 Gy) were generated using the same planning CT data set ("CT planning"). The plans were then also applied to a verification CT scan ("CT verify") obtained at a different moment. PTV, CTV, and OAR dose coverage were compared using non-parametric tests statistics for V95, V90 (% of the volume receiving 95 or 90% of the dose) and D50 (dose to 50% of the volume). RESULTS: Mean V95 of the PTV for "CT planning" was 94.3% (range, 88-99) vs 89.1% (range, 84-94.5) for 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT (p=0.005), respectively. Mean V95 of the CTV for "CT verify" was 97% for both 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT. Mean D50 of the rectum for "CT planning" was 26.8 Gy (range, 22-35) vs 43.5 Gy (range, 33.5-50.5) for 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT (p=0.0002), respectively. For "CT verify", this D50 was 31.1 Gy (range, 16.5-44) vs 44.2 Gy (range, 34-55) for 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT (p=0.006), respectively. V95 of the rectum was 0% for both plans for "CT planning", and 2.3% (3D-IMRT) vs 2.1% (3D-CRT) for "CT verify" (p=non-sig.). CONCLUSION: Dose coverage of the PTV and OAR was better with 3D-IMRT for each patient and remained so after internal volume changes.