Ninety-degree angled collimator: a dosimetric study related to dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with endometrial carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to ensure that the dose constraints of the organs at risk (OARs) were not exceeded while increasing the prescription dose to the planning target volume (PTV) from 45 to 50.4 Gray (Gy) with the dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) technique. While trying for this purpose, a new dynamic IMRT technique named 90° angled collimated dynamic IMRT (A-IMRT) planning was developed by us. METHODS: This study was based on the computed tomography data sets of 20 patients with postoperatively diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage 2 endometrial carcinoma. For each patient, conventional dynamic IMRT (C-IMRT, collimator angle of 0° at all gantry angles), A-IMRT (collimator angle of 90° at gantry angles of 110°, 180°, 215°, and 285°), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were planned. Planning techniques were compared with parameters used to evaluate PTV and OARs via dose-volume-histogram analysis using the paired two-tailed Wilcoxon's signed-rank test; p < 0.05 was considered indicative of statistical significance. RESULTS: All plans achieved adequate dose coverage for PTV. Although the technique with the lowest mean conformality index was A-IMRT (0.76 ± 0.05) compared to both C-IMRT (0.79 ± 0.04, p = 0.000) and VMAT (0.83 ± 0.03, p = 0.000), it protected the OARs especially the bladder (V45 = 32.84 ± 2.03 vs. 44.21 ± 6.67, p = 0.000), rectum (V30 = 56.18 ± 2.05 vs. 73.80 ± 4.75, p = 0.000) and both femoral heads (V30 for right = 12.19 ± 1.34 vs. 21.42 ± 4.03, p = 0.000 and V30 for left = 12.58 ± 1.48 vs. 21.35 ± 4.16, p = 0.000) better than C-IMRT. While the dose constraints of the bladder, rectum and bilateral femoral heads were not exceeded in any patient with A-IMRT or VMAT, they were exceeded in 19 (95%), 20 (100%) and 20 (100%) patients with C-IMRT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: OARs are better protected when external beam radiotherapy is applied to the pelvis at a dose of 50.4 Gy by turning the collimator angle to 90° at some gantry angles with the dynamic IMRT technique in the absence of VMAT.

Dosimetric Comparison of Three Different Radiotherapy Techniques in Antrum-Located Stomach Cancer

Background: The current optimal radiotherapy (RT) planning technique for stomach cancer is controversial. The design of RT for stomach cancer is difficult and differs according to tumor localization. Dosimetric and clinical studies have been performed in patients with different tumor localizations. This may be the main source of inconsistencies in study results. For this reason, we attempted to find the optimal RT technique for patients with stomach cancer in similar locations. Methods: This study was based on the computed tomography datasets of 20 patients with antrum-located stomach cancer. For each patient, treatments were designed using physical wedge-based conformal RT (WB-CRT), field-in-field intensity-modulated RT (FIF-IMRT), and dynamic intensity-modulated RT (IMRT). The techniques were compared in terms of expected target volume coverage and the dose to organs at risk (OAR) using a dose-volume histogram analysis. Results: FIF-IMRT was the most homogenous technique, with a better homogeneity index than WBCRT (p<0.001) or IMRT (p<0.001). However, IMRT had a better conformity index than WBCRT (p<0.001) or FIF-IMRT (p<0.001). Additionally, all OAR, including the kidneys, liver, and spinal cord, were better protected with IMRT than with WBCRT (p=0.023 to <0.001) or FIF-IMRT (p=0.028 to <0.001). Conclusions: In comparison to FIF-IMRT and WBCRT, IMRT appears to be the most appropriate technique for antrum-located stomach cancer. To establish whether IMRT is superior overall will require clinical studies, taking into account differences in both tumor localization (cardia, body, and antrum) and organ movement in patients with stomach cancer.