Toxicities and Outcome of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Vs 2D Conformal Radiotherapy in Head and Neck Cancers

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-67
Author(s):  
Nindra Armugram ◽  
◽  
Krishna Kadarlab ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Conformal Radiotherapy ◽  
Head And Neck Cancers ◽  
Intensity Modulated

scholarly journals Relevance of Combined Electron and Photon Beams in Radiotherapy of Head and Neck Cancers in the Era of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinod Pandey ◽  
K. C. Pandey ◽  
N. K. Pant ◽  
L. P. Verma
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck ◽  
Electron Beams ◽  
External Beam Radiotherapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Modern Technology ◽  
Head And Neck Cancers ◽  
Photon Beams ◽  
Average Percentage ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Electron And Photon

Abstract Introduction External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for head and neck (H&N) cancers continues to be delivered using varied technologies, ranging from the old two-dimensional conventional radiotherapy (2DRT) techniques to the modern three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in different centers in India. Due to limitations of spinal cord tolerance, electron and photon beams are combined in 2DRT and 3DCRT techniques for treating nodal volume of the H&N cases. However, many centers having modern technology practice IMRT/VMAT in place of electron beams. The purpose of this study is to analyze the role of combined electron and photon beams in radiotherapy of H&N cancers and its relevance in the modern era of IMRT/VMAT. Materials and Methods Data were collected through a survey conducted on cancer centers in India where radiotherapy is being given by 2DRT, 3DCRT, and IMR/VMAT for the treatment of head and neck cancers. Results The mean percentage of H&N (H&N) cases among all cases were 39.2% (standard deviation [SD]: 14.22), out of which 16.63% (SD: 20.83) were treated with a combination of photon and electron beams and 49.73% (SD: 37.41) were treated with IMRT/VMAT. The average percentage of H&N cases of government institutes was 38.39% (SD: 14.11) and that of private institutes was 40.14% (SD: 14.11). Patients treated with photon and electron combination and IMRT/VMAT were 22.19% (SD: 11.24) and 24.05% (SD: 23.99), respectively, in government institutes, and 10.29% (SD: 11.24) and 79.09% (SD: 26.75) in private institutes. Conclusion As per this study, we conclude that despite the availability of IMRT/VMAT, a combination of electron and photon beams is still relevant in India. Since a large proportion of the patients are still treated with the electron and photon combination, it is imperative that further studies on field–junction dosimetry should be conducted to ensure accurate dose delivery.

SU-GG-T-164: Quality Assurance and Dosimetric Analysis of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Using Compensators for Head and Neck Cancers

2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (6Part11) ◽  
pp. 2763-2763 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Tyagi ◽  
S Nangia ◽  
K Chufal ◽  
M Mishra ◽  
D Ghosh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Head And Neck Cancers ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Dosimetric Analysis

Implementation of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancers in routine practice

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Bednarek ◽  
T.V.F. Nguyen ◽  
M. Puyraveau ◽  
É. Bonnet ◽  
N. Lescut ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Head And Neck Cancers ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
Intensity Modulated

Review of Monoisocentric Split-Field Technique for Conventional and IMRT Treatment in Head and Neck Cancers: Technical Limitations and Approaches for Optimization

2005 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaled Abdel-Hakim ◽  
Tetsuo Nishimura ◽  
Michikatsu Takai ◽  
Harumi Sakahara
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
Head And Neck Cancers ◽  
Random Errors ◽  
Field Technique ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Field Matching ◽  
Split Field ◽  
Lower Neck

The importance of treatment planning of head and neck malignancies arises from the necessity to achieve homogenous doses to localized target volume surrounded by normal structures, which can produce acute and long-term morbidity. In many radiotherapy departments, a commonly employed strategy is a 3-field technique. Bilateral parallel-opposed fields are matched to anterior lower neck field. In recent years, Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) is used to radiate head and neck tumors. When the target extends to the lower neck regions, abutment of upper IMRT and lower neck fields is required. Field matching represents a technical challenge for the medical physicist, medical engineer, and radiation oncologist to treat multiple fields while avoiding their overlap on the spinal cord. The monoisocentric split field technique has recently become a common technique to achieve matchline homogenous dose while respecting normal tissue tolerance. The aim of this work is to review merits, limitations, and recent approaches to optimize matchline dose in monoisocentric technique in conventional and intensity modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancers. Although the technique has many advantages, it is subjected to some systematic and random errors due to equipment and patient setup inaccuracies. To decrease the magnitude of matchline inhomogeneities, customized penumbra generator or multileaf collimator have been used. Both methods are viable and represent alternative approaches to the problem of field matching using the asymmetric jaws.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document