Comparison of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment techniques for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
We studied target volume coverage and normal tissue sparing of serial tomotherapy intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and fixed-field IMRT for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), as compared with those of conventional beam arrangements. Twelve patients with NPC (T2-4N1-3M0) at Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology underwent computed tomography simulation. Images were then transferred to a virtual simulation workstation computer for target contouring. Target gross tumor volumes (GTV) were primary nasopharyngeal tumor (GTV(NP)) with a prescription of 70 Gy, grossly enlarged cervical nodes (GTV(LN)) with a prescription of 70 Gy, and the uninvolved cervical lymphatics [designated as the clinical tumor volume (CTV)] with a prescription of 60 Gy. Critical organs, including the parotid gland, spinal cord, brain stem, mandible, and pituitary gland, were also delineated. Conventional beam arrangements were designed following the guidelines of Intergroup (SWOG, RTOG, ECOG) NPC Study 0099 in which the dose was prescribed to the central axis and the target volumes were aimed to receive the prescribed dose +/- 10%. Similar dosimetric criteria were used to assess the target volume coverage capability of IMRT. Serial tomotherapy IMRT was planned using a 0.86-cm wide multivane collimator, while a dynamic multileaf collimator system with five equally spaced fixed gantry angles was designated for fixed-beam IMRT. The fractional volume of each critical organ that received a certain predefined threshold dose was obtained from dose-volume histograms of each organ in either the three-dimensional or IMRT treatment planning computer systems. Statistical analysis (paired t-test) was used to examine statistical significance. We found that serial tomotherapy achieved similar target volume coverage as conventional techniques (97.8 +/- 2.3% vs. 98.9 +/- 1.3%). The static-field IMRT technique (five equally spaced fields) was inferior, with 92.1 +/- 8.6% fractional GTV(NP) receiving 70 Gy +/- 10% dose (P < 0.05). However, GTV(LN) coverage of 70 Gy was significantly better with both IMRT techniques (96.1 +/- 3.2%, 87.7 +/- 10.6%, and 42.2 +/- 21% for tomotherapy, fixed-field IMRT, and conventional therapy, respectively). CTV coverage of 60 Gy was also significantly better with the IMRT techniques. Parotid gland sparing was quantified by evaluating the fractional volume of parotid gland receiving more than 30 Gy; 66.6 +/- 15%, 48.3 +/- 4%, and 93 +/- 10% of the parotid volume received more than 30 Gy using tomotherapy, fixed-field IMRT, and conventional therapy, respectively (P < 0.05). Fixed-field IMRT technique had the best parotid-sparing effect despite less desirable target coverage. The pituitary gland, mandible, spinal cord, and brain stem were also better spared by both IMRT techniques. These encouraging dosimetric results substantiate the theoretical advantage of inverse-planning IMRT in the management of NPC. We showed that target coverage of the primary tumor was maintained and nodal coverage was improved, as compared with conventional beam arrangements. The ability of IMRT to spare the parotid glands is exciting, and a prospective clinical study is currently underway at our institution to address the optimal parotid dose-volume needs to be spared to prevent xerostomia and to improve the quality of life in patients with NPC.
Cheng JC
,Chao KS
,Low D
《INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER》
(18) F-Fluoromisonidazole positron emission tomography/CT-guided volumetric-modulated arc therapy-based dose escalation for hypoxic subvolume in nasopharyngeal carcinomas: A feasibility study.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the feasibility of a simultaneously integrated boost to the hypoxic subvolume of nasopharyngeal carcinomas (NCPs) under the guidance of 18 F-fluoromisonidazole (FMISO) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques.
Eight patients with NPC were treated with simultaneous integrated boost-IMRT (treatment plan named IMRT70) with dose prescriptions of 70 Gy, 66 Gy, 60 Gy, and 54 Gy to the gross tumor volume (GTV), positive neck nodes, the planning target volume (PTV), and the clinically negative neck, respectively. Based on the same datasets, experimental plans with the same dose prescription plus a dose boost of 14 Gy (an escalation of 20% of the prescription dose) to the hypoxic volume target contoured on the pretreatment 18 F-FMISO PET/CT imaging were generated using IMRT and VMAT techniques, respectively (represented by IMRT84 and VMAT84). Two or more arcs (approximately 2-2.5 arcs, totally rotating angle <1000 degrees) were used in VMAT plans and 9 equally separated fields in IMRT plans. Dosimetric parameters, total monitor units, and delivery time were calculated for comparative study of plan quality and delivery efficiency between IMRT84 and VMAT84.
In experimental plans, hypoxic target volumes successfully received the prescribed dose of 84 Gy in compliance with other dose constraints with either the IMRT technique or the VMAT technique. In terms of the target coverage, dose homogeneity, and organs at risk (OAR) sparing, there was no statistically significant difference between the actual treatment plan of IMRT70 and experimental plans. The total monitor unit of VMAT84 (525.7 ± 39.8) was significantly less than IMRT70 (1171.5 ± 167; P = .001) and IMRT84 (1388.3 ± 151.0; P = .001) per fraction, with 55.1% and 62.1% reduction. The average machine delivery time was 3.5 minutes for VMAT plans in comparison with approximately 8 minutes for IMRT plans, resulting in a reduction factor of 56.2%. For experimental plans, the 3D gamma index average was over 98.0% with no statistical significant difference when a 3%/3 mm gamma passing rate criteria was used.
With the guidance of 18 F-FMISO PET/CT imaging, dose escalation to hypoxic zones within NPC could be achieved and delivered efficiently with the VMAT technique in comparison with the IMRT technique.
Qiu J
,Lv B
,Fu M
,Wang X
,Zheng X
,Zhuo W
... -
《-》