ABSTRACT
Introduction Radiotherapy plays a vital role in the management of gynecological malignancies. However, maintaining patient position poses a challenge during daily radiotherapy treatment of these patients. This study identifies and calculates setup errors in interfraction radiotherapy and optimum clinical target volume-planning target volume (CTV-PTV) margins in patients with gynecological malignancies. Material and methods A total of 38 patients with gynecological malignancies were included in the study. They were treated with a dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions for five weeks, followed by brachytherapy. All patients were immobilized using a 4-point thermoplastic cast. Anteroposterior and lateral images were taken thrice weekly for five weeks. Setup verification was done using kilovoltage images obtained using Varian On-board Imager (Varian Medical System, Inc., Palo Alto, CA). Manual matching was done utilizing bony landmarks such as the widest portion of the pelvic brim, anterior border of S1 vertebrae, and pubic symphysis in the X, Y, and Z axes, respectively. Results A total of 1140 images were taken. The individual systematic errors ranged from -0.24 to 0.17 cm (LR), -0.15 to 0.19 cm (AP) and -0.36 to 0.29 cm (CC) while the individual random errors ranged from 0.04 to 0.36 cm (LR), 0.06 to 0.33 cm (AP) and 0.10 to 0.29 cm (CC). The calculated CTV-PTV margins in LR, AP and CC directions were 0.17, 0.18, and 0.25 cm (ICRU-62); 0.28, 0.31 and 0.47 cm in LR, AP and CC directions (Stroom's), and 0.32, 0.36 and 0.55 cm (Van Herk) respectively. Conclusion Based on this study, the calculated CTV-PTV margin is 6 mm in gynecological malignancies, and the present protocol of 7 mm of PTV margin is optimum.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Chemoradiotherapy plays a major role in the treatment of head and neck cancer (HNC). Persistent dysphagia following primary chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancers can have a devastating effect on a patient's quality of life. Many studies have shown that the dosimetric sparing of critical structures which were included in swallowing such as the pharyngeal constrictor muscle and larynx can provide improved functional outcomes and better quality of life. However, there are no current randomized studies confirming the benefits of such swallowing-sparing strategies. The aim is to evaluate late dysphagia after chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer and to examine its correlation with clinical and dosimetric parameters. Materials and methods The period of this prospective study was from November 2018 to March 2020. Patients were divided randomly in 1:1 ratio into two groups, group 1 and group 2, each with 25 patients. Group 1 was planned by three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) technique and group 2 was planned by intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique (IMRT) technique. Treatment was delivered after approval of radiotherapy plan. To evaluate the dose to dysphagia aspiration-related structures (DARS), these structures were contoured and dose-volume histograms were generated. Various dosimetric parameters of DARS were evaluated. Swallowing status was clinically evaluated based on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5. Results A significant advantage was seen with intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique (IMRT) in comparison to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in terms of mean dose delivered to the pharyngeal constrictor muscles (66.03 Gy vs 68.77 Gy, p=0.003). The mean dose delivered to the combined dysphagia/aspiration-related structures (DARS) was statistically significantly lower in IMRT compared to 3D-CRT (66.15 Gy vs. 70.09 Gy, p<0.001). Other dose-volumes were also reduced in IMRT group (V30: {98.64% vs. 99.88%, p=0.05}; V50: {90.49% vs. 99.02%, p=0.0002}; V60: {83.92% vs. 95.04, p=0.0002}; D50: {70 Gy vs. 71.16 Gy, p=0.001); and D80: {61.18 Gy vs. 67.39 Gy, p=0.01}. Futhermore, the clinical worsening of dysphagia was less common in IMRT group (48% vs. 80%, p=0.039). Conclusion IMRT can reduce the high-dose volumes received by the DARS receiving high doses by sparing these structures through optimization. This may provide a significant additional benefit that could improve dysphagia and hence the quality of life of patients with head and neck cancer.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Radiotherapy has been an important component of the multimodality approach to breast cancer treatment. Newer techniques like three-dimensional radiotherapy had led to better dose distribution over the target volume, with tissue inhomogeneity corrections. To improve the uniformity in dose distribution, a newer technique of intensity modulation was developed, namely, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The present study was designed to compare inverse planned IMRT (IP IMRT) and field-in-field forward planned IMRT (FP IMRT) in patients with breast cancer receiving post-modified radical mastectomy (MRM) adjuvant radiotherapy in terms of dosimetric parameters and clinical outcomes. Materials and methods Fifty patients with breast cancer who have undergone MRM and need adjuvant radiotherapy were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio into two groups (25 each) of IP IMRT and FP IMRT techniques. The prescribed dose was 50 Gy in 25 fractions over five weeks. In IP IMRT, five to seven tangential beams were used for the chest wall, nodal volumes were placed at suitable angles with beam optimization, and calculation was carried out by the analytical anisotropic algorithm. For FP IMRT, two opposing tangential fields were created in such a way to achieve uniform dose distribution to the planning target volume (PTV), minimizing hot spot regions, and limiting dose to the ipsilateral lung and contralateral breast. Multiple subfields were manually designed to boost the area not included in the dose cloud. The dosimetric parameters were compared for PTV, lungs, heart, left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD), opposite breast, and esophagus. Results The dosimetric parameters in terms of PTV are better for IP IMRT plans compared to FP IMRT plans (V95%: 92.3% vs 75.2%, p = 0.0001; D90%: 47.4 Gy vs 42.9 Gy, p = 0.0001; D95%: 44.9 Gy vs 37.1, p = 0.0004). The ipsilateral lung (V10Gy: 71.9% vs 41%, p = 0.00001; V20Gy: 42.14% vs 36.35%, p = 0.03; V40Gy: 17.31% vs 26.95%, p = 0.00004; Dmean: 20.91 Gy vs 17.88 Gy, p = 0.01) and contralateral lung (V5Gy: 31.8% vs 0.1%, p < 0.00001; V10Gy: 6.2% vs 0.08%, p = 0.0001) received statistically significant lesser doses in terms of low dose parameters in FP IMRT. In the heart, the dosimetric parameter V5 was significantly lower for FP IMRT (61.7% vs 9.7%, p = 0.00001) along with Dmean (10.92 Gy vs 4.01 Gy, p = 0.001). Similarly, LAD parameters showed comparable high dose volumes (V40Gy: 21.02% vs 16.26%; p = 0.29) in both groups and a trend toward reduction in mean dose (17.1% vs 9.2%; p = 0.05) in FP IMRT group, although low dose volumes were higher in IP IMRT group. In contralateral breast, doses in smaller volumes were better for FP IMRT plans (V0.5Gy: 59.7% vs 43.8%, p = 0.01; V0.6Gy: 54.07% vs 37.6%, p = 0.007; V1Gy: 40.9% vs 22.1%, p = 0.001; V2Gy: 28.7% vs 9.4%, p = 0.00003; V5Gy: 12.07% vs 4.2%, p = 0.0001). In esophagus, statistically significant lower doses were seen only in terms of Dmean (10.29 Gy vs 5.1 Gy; p = 0.03) with FP IMRT. No significant difference in terms of skin reactions and dysphagia was seen in both the groups. Conclusion Both IP IMRT and FP IMRT techniques have advantages and disadvantages, and the superiority of one technique over another cannot be established in this study. The decision for choosing one technique over another can also be based on various patient-related factors weighing the risk of loco-regional recurrences to that of manifesting radiation-induced sequelae.
