Comparison of target coverage and dose to organs at risk between simultaneous integrated-boost whole-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy and junctioned intensity-modulated radiation therapy with a conventional radiotherapy field in treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jin-Beom Chung ◽  
Jeong-Woo Lee ◽  
Jae-Sung Kim ◽  
In-Ah Kim ◽  
Doo-Hyun Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma ◽  
Field Intensity ◽  
Organs At Risk ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Target Coverage ◽  
Conventional Radiotherapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Radiotherapy Field ◽  
Integrated Boost

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

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 447-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Erraoudi ◽  
M. A. Youssoufi ◽  
F. Bentayeb ◽  
M. R. Malisan
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Organs At Risk ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Conformal Radiotherapy ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
The Body ◽  
Larynx Cancer ◽  
Body Volume ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Integrated Boost

AbstractBackgroundIntensity-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.MethodsThree 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).ResultsBasically 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.ConclusionThe IMRT-CT technique, combining two different seven-beam setups, delivered in two treatment phases, improves dose distribution without increasing delivery time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document