RESUMEN
Objective To investigate the advantage of the intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment (IMRT) by allowing dose heterogeneity in the target volume in esophageal cancer treatment planning.Methods Two sets of 5-field IMRT planning were designed for 10 esophageal cancer patients upon the condition of appropriate clinical tolerance level with the prescription dose of 60 Gy to 95% of the planned target volume (PTV) and the maximum dose of 45 Gy to the spinal cord:the IMRT with rigid restriction of the maximum homogeneous dose to the PTV within 63 Gy prescribing a homogeneous dose ( IMRThom ) and the IMRT allowing dose heterogeneity by loosening the constraints on maximum dose in the PTV to 69 Gy ( IMRTinhom ).Dosimetric comparison was conducted by using dose-volume histograms.Results Compared to IMRThom, the minimum dose (t = -3.37,P =0.012), maximum dose (t = - 23.58,P = 0.000), mean dose ( t = - 4.95, P = 0.002 ), and heterogeneity index ( t = - 11.06, P =0.000) in PTV of the IMRTinhom were all significantly increased, and the values of V5 (t = 6.96, P =0.000), V10(t=5.24,P=0.001) , V15(t=4.73,P=0.002) , V20(t=8.08,P=0.000) , V25(t=8.58,P = 0.000), and mean dose (t = 7.28,P = 0.000) of the normal lungs were all significantly lower.There were no significant differences in all the indexes for the mean dose to the heart and maximum dose to the spinal cord between these 2 set of planning.Conclusions The IMRT plan allowing dose heterogeneity in the PTV escalates the prescription dose and decreases the doses to the lungs.
RESUMEN
Objective To identify the best technique of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT).Methods Twenty-eight patients with stage Ⅱ or Ⅲ invasive breast cancer were treated with modified radical mastectomy and radiotherapy sequaciously involving the supraclavicular region and the chest wall.Three different techniques were developed for each patient:two tangential conformal fields ( half field) in the chest wall plus supraclavicular intensity modulated radiotherapy (3D-CRT + IMRT),integrated chest wall and supraclavicular IMRT(IMRT),and two tangential conformal fields (half field) in the chest wall plus single field electron beam radiotherapy in the supraclavicular region( 3D-CRT + E).The dose distributions of the target areas and the irradiated volumes of the ipsilateral lung ( V5,V10,V20,and V45)were estimated with the dosage volume histogram (DVH).The dosage prescription was 50.4 Gy (1.8 Gy × 28 f).Results The conformity index (CI) of the 3D-CRT + IMRT group was (0.61 ± 0.03),not different from that of the IMRT [ (0.62 ±0.03),q =2.16,P ＞0.05],and the CI levels of these 2 groups were both higher than that of the 3D-CRT + E group [ (0.44 ± 0.02 ),q =20.50,22.66,P ＜0.01 ].The heterogeneity index (HI) of the 3D-CRT + IMRT group was ( 1.17 ±0.02),not different from that of the IMRT [ (1.15 ±0.02),q =1.66,P ＞0.05],and the HI levels of these 2 groups were both lower than that of the 3D-CRT + E group[ ( 1.24 ±0.04),q =3.91,5.58,P ＜0.01 ].The levels of V5 and V10 of the ipsilateral lungs of the 3D-CRT + E group(48.70％ ±3.24％,38％.56％ ±3.70％ ) and 3D-CRT + IMRT group (49.12％ ±3.03％,38.38％ ± 3.56％ ) were all significantly lower than those of the IMRTgroup [(77.18％ ±8.01％,53.07％ ±6.85％),V5,q =20.35,20.05,P＜0.01; V10,q=12.10,12.24,P ＜0.01 ] and there were not significant differences in the V5 and V10 levels between the 3D-CRT + E and 3D-CRT + IMRT groups ( q =0.30,0.14,P ＞ 0.05 ).The levels of V20 of the ipsilateral lungs of the 3D-CRT + IMRT group (26.57％ ±2.51％ )and IMRT group (25.22％ ±2.77％) were all significantly lower that those of the 3D-CRT + E group [ (31.79％ ± 3.00％ ),q =5.27,8.21,P ＜ 0.01 ]and there were not significant differences in the V20 level between the 3D-CRT + IMRT and IMRT groups (q=2.76,P ＞ 0.05 ).There were not significant differences in the V45 levels among these 3 groups (F =0.69,P ＞ 0.05).Conclusions The 3D-CRT + IMRT technique in PMRT effectively reduces the radiated dose on the ipsilateral lung.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE : To investigate the feasibility of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) as a method of boost radiotherapy following the initial irradiation by the conventional anterior / posterior opposed beams for centrally located non-small-cell lung cancer through the evaluation of dose distributions according to the various boost methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS : Seven patients with T3 or T4 lung cancer and mediastinal node enlargement who previously received radiotherapy were studied. All patients underwent virtual simulation retrospectively with the previous treatment planning CTs. Initial radiotherapy plans were designed to deliver 40 Gy to the primary tumor and involved nodal regions with the conventional anterior / posterior opposed beams. Two radiation dose levels, 24 and 30 Gy, were used for the boost radiotherapy plans, and 4 different boost methods (a three dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), 5, 7, and 9-beams IMRT) were applied to each dose level. The goals of the boost plans were to deliver the prescribed radiation dose to 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) and minimize the volumes of the normal lungs and spinal cord irradiated above their tolerance doses. Dose distributions in the PTVs and lungs, according to the four types of boost plans, were compared in the boost and sum plans, respectively. RESULTS : The percentage of lung volumes irradiated >20 Gy (V20) were reduced significantly in the IMRT boost plans compared with the 3DCRT boost plans at the 24 and 30 Gy dose levels (p=0.007 and 0.031 respectively). Mean lung doses according to the boost methods were not different in the 24 and 30 Gy boost plans. The conformity indexes (CI) of the IMRT boost plans were lower than those of the 3DCRT plans in the 24 and 30 Gy plans (p=0.001 in both). For the sum plans, there was no difference of the dose distributions in the PTVs and lungs according to the boost methods. CONCLUSION : In the boost plans the V20s and CIs were reduced significantly by the IMRT plans, but in the sum plans the effects of IMRT to the dose distributions in the tumor and lungs, like CI and V20, were offset. Therefore, in order to keep the beneficial effect of IMRT in radiotherapy for lung cancer, it would be better to use IMRT as a whole treatment plan rather than as a boost treatment