Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-21T20:48:37.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A planning study to optimise a simultaneously integrated boost treatment of larynx cancer with seven intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) beams

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2018

M. Erraoudi ,
M. A. Youssoufi ,
F. Bentayeb  and
M. R. Malisan
M. Erraoudi
Affiliation:
Faculty of Sciences, Mohammed V University, Rabat, Morocco
M. A. Youssoufi
Affiliation:
Faculty of Sciences, Mohammed V University, Rabat, Morocco
F. Bentayeb*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Sciences, Mohammed V University, Rabat, Morocco
M. R. Malisan
Affiliation:
International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy
*
Author for correspondence: F. Bentayeb, Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences, B.P. 1014, 10000 Rabat, Morocco. Tel: 00212 668460012. E-mail: benayebfr@yahoo.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is one of the most reported techniques for head and neck cancer treatment, as it allows a good coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) while sparing the surrounding organs at risk (OAR) better than conventional conformal radiotherapy. The objective of this work is to optimise an IMRT technique for the simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) treatment of larynx cancer delivering a total dose of 69·96 Gy to the boost volume and 54·45 Gy to the elective volume in 33 fractions.

Methods

Three IMRT techniques, each using seven equally spaced beams, were planned for a sample of 10 patients. The first two techniques (IMRT-0 and IMRT-26) differ only for the starting angle of the seven beams, whereas the third (IMRT-CT) combines both these techniques by delivering IMRT-0 in the first half of treatment, and IMRT-26 in the second half, thus taking advantage of using 14 beams in total while using seven at a time only. The planning results were compared according to the dose coverage, homogeneity and conformity of the two PTVs, as well as to the dose to OARs, that is, spinal cord, parotids, mandible, brainstem and healthy tissue (defined as the body volume minus the sum of PTVs).

Results

Basically the PTV coverage resulted acceptable and comparable with all the three techniques. Concerning OARs, statistically better results are obtained in IMRT-CT when compared with IMRT-26 and IMRT-0.

Conclusion

The IMRT-CT technique, combining two different seven-beam setups, delivered in two treatment phases, improves dose distribution without increasing delivery time.

Keywords

IMRT techniqueslarynx cancer treatmentOARs dosesoptimisationPTV dose homogeneity and conformity
Type
Technical Note
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 447 - 454
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Bär, W, Schwarz, M, Alber, M et al. A comparison of forward and inverse treatment planning for intensity-modulated radiotherapy of head and neck cancer. Radiother Oncol 2003; 69: 251–258.Google Scholar
2. Vanetti, E, Clivio, A, Nicolini, G et al. Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinomas of the oro-pharynx, hypo-pharynx and larynx: a treatment planning comparison with fixed field IMRT. Radiother Oncol 2009; 92: 111–117.Google Scholar
3. Lu, S H, Cheng, J C, Kuo, S H et al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a dosimetric comparison with TomoTherapy and step-and-shoot IMRT. Radiother Oncol 2012; 104 (3): 324–330.Google Scholar
4. White, P, Chan, K C, Cheng, K W, Chan, K Y, Chau, M C. Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs conventional intensity modulated radiation therapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a dosimetric study. J Radiat Res 2013; 54: 532–545.Google Scholar
5. Eisbruch, A, Ten Haken, R K, Kim, H M, Marsh, L H, Ship, J A. Dose, volume, and function relationships in parotid salivary glands following conformal and intensity-modulated irradiation of head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 45: 577–587.Google Scholar
6. Parliament, M B, Scrimger, R A, Anderson, S G et al. Preservation of oral health-related quality of life and salivary flow rates after inverse-planned intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 58: 663–673.Google Scholar
7. Marta, G N, Silva, V, de Andrade Carvalho, H et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: systematic review and meta analysis. Radiother Oncol 2014; 110: 9–15.Google Scholar
8. Van Asselen, B, Dehnad, H, Terhaard, C H, Lagendijk, J J, Raaijmakers, C P. Segmental IMRT for oropharyngeal cancer in a clinical setting. Radiother Oncol 2003; 69: 259–266.Google Scholar
9. Samuelsson, A, Johansson, K A. Intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment planning for dynamic multileaf collimator delivery: influence of different parameters on dose distributions. Radiother Oncol 2003; 66: 19–28.Google Scholar
10. Wu, Q, Manning, M, Schmidt-Ullrich, R, Mohan, R. The potential for sparing of parotids and escalation of biologically effective dose with intensity-modulated radiation treatments of head and neck cancers: a treatment design study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 46: 195–205.Google Scholar
11. Popple, R A, Fiveash, J B, Brezovich, I A. Effect of beam number on organ at risk sparing in dynamic multileaf collimator delivery of intensity modulated radiation therapy. Med Phys 2007; 34: 3752–3759.Google Scholar
12. Merlotti, A, Alterio, D, Vigna-Taglianti, R et al. Technical guidelines for head and neck cancer IMRT on behalf of the Italian association of radiation oncology-head and neck working group. Radiat Oncol 2014; 9: 264.Google Scholar
13. Dobler, B, Obermeier, T, Hautmann, M G, Khemissi, A, Koelbl, O. Simultaneous integrated boost therapy of carcinoma of the hypopharynx/larynx with and without flattening filter – a treatment planning and dosimetry study. Radiat Oncol 2017; 12: 114.Google Scholar
14. Stein, J, Mohan, R, Wang, X H et al. Number and orientations of beams in intensity-modulated radiation treatments. Med Phys 1997; 24 (2): 149–160.Google Scholar
15. Huguenin, P, Taussky, D, Moe, K et al. Quality of life in patients cured from carcinoma of the head and neck by radiotherapy: the importance of the target volume. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 45: 47–52.Google Scholar
16. Wijers, O B, Levendag, P C, Braaksma, M M, Boonzaaijer, M, Visch, L L, Schmitz, P I. Patients with head and neck cancer cured by radiation therapy: a survey of the dry mouth syndrome in long-term survivors. Head Neck 2002; 24: 737–747.Google Scholar
17. Eisbruch, A, Marsh, L H, Martel, M K et al. Comprehensive irradiation of head and neck cancer using conformal multisegmental fields: assessment of target coverage and non-involved tissue sparing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 41: 559–568.Google Scholar
18. Kataria, T, Sharma, K, Subramani, V, Karrthick, K P, Bisht, S S. Homogeneity Index: an objective tool for assessment of conformal radiation treatments. J Med Phys 2012; 37: 207–213.Google Scholar
19. Yoon, M, Park, S Y, Shin, D et al. A new homogeneity index based on statistical analysis of the dosevolume histogram. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2007; 8: 9–17.Google Scholar