Intensity modulated arc therapy implementation in a three phase adaptive 18F-FDG-PET voxel intensity-based planning strategy for head-and-neck cancer

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

This study investigates the implementation of a new intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT) class solution in comparison to a 6-static beam step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiotherapy (s-IMRT) for three-phase adaptive ¹⁸F-FDG-PET-voxel-based dose-painting-by-numbers (DPBN) for head-and-neck cancer.

Methods

We developed ¹⁸F-FDG-PET-voxel intensity-based IMAT employing multiple arcs and compared it to clinically used s-IMRT DPBN. Three IMAT plans using ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT acquired before treatment (phase I), after 8 fractions (phase II) and CT acquired after 18 fractions (phase III) were generated for each of 10 patients treated with 3 s-IMRT plans based on the same image sets. Based on deformable image registration (ABAS, version 0.41, Elekta CMS Software, Maryland Heights, MO), doses of the 3 plans were summed on the pretreatment CT using validated in-house developed software. Dosimetric indices in targets and organs-at-risk (OARs), biologic conformity of treatment plans set at ≤5 %, treatment quality and efficiency were compared between IMAT and s-IMRT for the whole group and for individual patients.

Results

Doses to most organs-at-risk (OARs) were significantly better in IMAT plans, while target levels were similar for both types of plans. On average, IMAT ipsilateral and contralateral parotid mean doses were 14.0 % ( p = 0.001) and 12.7 % ( p < 0.001) lower, respectively. Pharyngeal constrictors D _50% levels were similar or reduced with up to 54.9 % for IMAT compared to s-IMRT for individual patient cases. IMAT significantly improved biologic conformity by 2.1 % for treatment phases I and II. 3D phantom measurements reported an agreement of ≥95 % for 3 % and 3 mm criteria for both treatment modalities. IMAT delivery time was significantly shortened on average by 41.1 %.

Conclusions

IMAT implementation significantly improved the biologic conformity as compared to s-IMRT in adaptive dose-escalated DPBN treatments. The better OAR sparing and faster delivery highly improved the treatment efficiency.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-016-0629-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Related collections

Most cited references 26

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions.

D Low, W Harms, S Mutic … (1998)

The commissioning of a three-dimensional treatment planning system requires comparisons of measured and calculated dose distributions. Techniques have been developed to facilitate quantitative comparisons, including superimposed isodoses, dose-difference, and distance-to-agreement (DTA) distributions. The criterion for acceptable calculation performance is generally defined as a tolerance of the dose and DTA in regions of low and high dose gradients, respectively. The dose difference and DTA distributions complement each other in their useful regions. A composite distribution has recently been developed that presents the dose difference in regions that fail both dose-difference and DTA comparison criteria. Although the composite distribution identifies locations where the calculation fails the preselected criteria, no numerical quality measure is provided for display or analysis. A technique is developed to unify dose distribution comparisons using the acceptance criteria. The measure of acceptability is the multidimensional distance between the measurement and calculation points in both the dose and the physical distance, scaled as a fraction of the acceptance criteria. In a space composed of dose and spatial coordinates, the acceptance criteria form an ellipsoid surface, the major axis scales of which are determined by individual acceptance criteria and the center of which is located at the measurement point in question. When the calculated dose distribution surface passes through the ellipsoid, the calculation passes the acceptance test for the measurement point. The minimum radial distance between the measurement point and the calculation points (expressed as a surface in the dose-distance space) is termed the gamma index. Regions where gamma > 1 correspond to locations where the calculation does not meet the acceptance criteria. The determination of gamma throughout the measured dose distribution provides a presentation that quantitatively indicates the calculation accuracy. Examples of a 6 MV beam penumbra are used to illustrate the gamma index.

0 comments Cited 619 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial

Christopher Nutting, James Morden, Kevin J. Harrington … (2011)

Summary Background Xerostomia is the most common late side-effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck. Compared with conventional radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can reduce irradiation of the parotid glands. We assessed the hypothesis that parotid-sparing IMRT reduces the incidence of severe xerostomia. Methods We undertook a randomised controlled trial between Jan 21, 2003, and Dec 7, 2007, that compared conventional radiotherapy (control) with parotid-sparing IMRT. We randomly assigned patients with histologically confirmed pharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma (T1–4, N0–3, M0) at six UK radiotherapy centres between the two radiotherapy techniques (1:1 ratio). A dose of 60 or 65 Gy was prescribed in 30 daily fractions given Monday to Friday. Treatment was not masked. Randomisation was by computer-generated permuted blocks and was stratified by centre and tumour site. Our primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months, as assessed by the Late Effects of Normal Tissue (LENT SOMA) scale. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, with all patients who had assessments included. Long-term follow-up of patients is ongoing. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial register, number ISRCTN48243537. Findings 47 patients were assigned to each treatment arm. Median follow-up was 44·0 months (IQR 30·0–59·7). Six patients from each group died before 12 months and seven patients from the conventional radiotherapy and two from the IMRT group were not assessed at 12 months. At 12 months xerostomia side-effects were reported in 73 of 82 alive patients; grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months was significantly lower in the IMRT group than in the conventional radiotherapy group (25 [74%; 95% CI 56–87] of 34 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 15 [38%; 23–55] of 39 given IMRT, p=0·0027). The only recorded acute adverse event of grade 2 or worse that differed significantly between the treatment groups was fatigue, which was more prevalent in the IMRT group (18 [41%; 99% CI 23–61] of 44 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 35 [74%; 55–89] of 47 given IMRT, p=0·0015). At 24 months, grade 2 or worse xerostomia was significantly less common with IMRT than with conventional radiotherapy (20 [83%; 95% CI 63–95] of 24 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs nine [29%; 14–48] of 31 given IMRT; p<0·0001). At 12 and 24 months, significant benefits were seen in recovery of saliva secretion with IMRT compared with conventional radiotherapy, as were clinically significant improvements in dry-mouth-specific and global quality of life scores. At 24 months, no significant differences were seen between randomised groups in non-xerostomia late toxicities, locoregional control, or overall survival. Interpretation Sparing the parotid glands with IMRT significantly reduces the incidence of xerostomia and leads to recovery of saliva secretion and improvements in associated quality of life, and thus strongly supports a role for IMRT in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Funding Cancer Research UK (CRUK/03/005).

0 comments Cited 407 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Prospective randomized study of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on salivary gland function in early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients.

Gary C. T. Chan, J Yu, Rossa Chiu … (2007)

This randomized trial compared the rates of delayed xerostomia between two-dimensional radiation therapy (2DRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Between November 2001 and December 2003, 60 patients with T1-2bN0-1M0 NPC were randomly assigned to receive either IMRT or 2DRT. Primary end point was incidence of observer-rated severe xerostomia at 1 year after treatment based on Radiotherapy Oncology Group /European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer late radiation morbidity scoring criteria. Parallel assessment with patient-reported outcome, stimulated parotid flow rate (SPFR), and stimulated whole saliva flow rate (SWSFR) were also made. At 1 year after treatment, patients in IMRT arm had lower incidence of observer-rated severe xerostomia than patients in the 2DRT arm (39.3% v 82.1%; P = .001), parallel with a higher fractional SPFR (0.90 v 0.05; P < .0001), and higher fractional SWSFR (0.41 v 0.20; P = .001). As for patient's subjective feeling, although a trend of improvement in patient-reported outcome was observed after IMRT, recovery was incomplete and there was no significant difference in patient-reported outcome between the two arms. IMRT is superior to 2DRT in preserving parotid function and results in less severe delayed xerostomia in the treatment of early-stage NPC. Incomplete improvement in patient's subjective xerostomia with parotid-sparing IMRT reflects the need to enhance protection of other salivary glands.

0 comments Cited 143 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Dieter Berwouts: 0032 9 332 30 15 , dieter.berwouts@ugent.be , dieter.berwouts@uzgent.be

Luiza Ana Maria Olteanu: AnaMariaLuiza.Olteanu@ugent.be

Bruno Speleers: bruno.speleers@ugent.Be

Frédéric Duprez: Frederic.duprez@uzgent.be

Indira Madani: indira.madani@usz.ch

Tom Vercauteren: tom.vercauteren@uzgent.be

Wilfried De Neve: wilfried.deneve@ugent.be

Werner De Gersem: werner.degersem@ugent.be

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Radiat Oncol

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Radiat Oncol

Title: Radiation Oncology (London, England)

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 1748-717X

Publication date (Electronic): 2 April 2016

Publication date PMC-release: 2 April 2016

Publication date Collection: 2016

Volume: 11

Electronic Location Identifier: 52

Affiliations

[ ]Department of Radiotherapy, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000 Ghent, Belgium

[ ]Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium

[ ]Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

[ ]Zürich University Hospital, Zürich, Switzerland

Article

Publisher ID: 629

DOI: 10.1186/s13014-016-0629-3

PMC ID: 4818905

PubMed ID: 27039294

SO-VID: e9b55944-e251-4e6c-838b-f1001d55c6af

License:

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

History

Date received : 17 December 2015

Date accepted : 28 March 2016

Funding

Funded by: Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology, the Foundation against Cancer and the Flemish League against Cancer

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Oncology & Radiotherapy

Keywords: adaptive intensity modulated arc therapy,dose-painting,intensity modulated radiotherapy,head-and-neck cancer

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Oncology & Radiotherapy

Keywords: adaptive intensity modulated arc therapy, dose-painting, intensity modulated radiotherapy, head-and-neck cancer

Intensity modulated arc therapy implementation in a three phase adaptive ¹⁸F-FDG-PET voxel intensity-based planning strategy for head-and-neck cancer

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Electronic supplementary material

Related collections

Karger: Oncology

Most cited references 26

A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions.

Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial

Prospective randomized study of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on salivary gland function in early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 64

Cited by 6

Most referenced authors 284