We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This work aims to compare the dosimetric performance of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), a relatively available technique in developing countries, to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the treatment of different stages of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).
Materials and Methods
According to the diagnostic stages, 40 NPC patients were divided into two equal groups. Three planning techniques such as 3D-CRT, seven-field IMRT (7F-IMRT) and nine-field IMRT (9F-IMRT) were compared. Dose prescriptions of 70 and 66 Gy were delivered in 35 fractions to gross planning target volume (PTV1) and bilateral retropharyngeal carcinoma (PTV2), respectively.
Results
Stage I dose data for almost all of the three investigated planning techniques obey the international recommendations. The dose delivered to PTV1 and PTV2 for 3D-CRT and 7F-IMRT are statistically similar, whereas 9F-IMRT is significantly better than 3D-CRT. For organs at risk (OARs), the delivered dose is significantly better for 9F-IMRT compared with the other two techniques, whereas 7F-IMRT is significantly better than 3D-CRT.
Conclusions
3D-CRT is an acceptable alternative treatment technique for stage I NPC patients in developing countries suffering from the lack of advanced radiotherapy treatment techniques. 3D-CRT and 7F-IMRT have comparable performance in PTVs, while 9F-IMRT is superior in PTVs and OARs.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.