IMRT for postoperative treatment of gastric cancer: covering large target volumes in the upper abdomen: a comparison of a step-and-shoot and an arc therapy approach.

PURPOSE: Data from the randomized Intergroup Trial 116 suggest effectiveness of adjuvant radiochemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Late toxicity, however, especially with respect to the kidneys, may pose significant longtime problems. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) may reduce toxicity to organs at risk. To evaluate the relative merits of different IMRT approaches, we performed a plan comparison between a step-and-shoot class solution and an AP-PA setup, a conventional box technique and the Peacock tomotherapy approach. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Computed tomographies and structure data from 15 patients who had been treated postoperatively for advanced (T3/T4/N+) gastric cancer at our department formed the basis of our plan comparison study. For each patient data set, 5 plans or plan combinations (conventional 3D plan, AP-PA plan, step-and-shoot IMRT, tomotherapy with 1-cm or 2-cm collimation) were chosen, and evaluation was performed for a total dose of 45 Gy delivered as the median dose to the target volume for each plan or plan combination. RESULTS: Median kidney dose generated from the IMRT plans is reduced individually by >50% for the kidney with the highest exposure (usually the left kidney) from 20 to 30 Gy with conventional 3D planning down to values between 8 and 10 Gy for IMRT. On average, median dose to the right kidney is the same for the conventional box technique and IMRT (between 8 and 10 Gy) but lower for the AP-PA technique. In 3 patients, kidney dose might have been ablative for both kidneys with both the AP-PA technique and the box technique, whereas it was acceptable with IMRT. Median dose to the liver was subcritical with all modalities but lowest with AP-PA fields. Differences between step-and-shoot IMRT and tomotherapy plans are small when compared to the differences between IMRT plans and conventional conformal 3D plans. For some patients, however, their body and target diameters obviate treatment with tomotherapy. Treatment time for the step-and-shoot approach and for tomotherapy with 2-cm collimation can be kept <20 min. CONCLUSIONS: For postoperative radiotherapy of advanced gastric cancer, step-and-shoot IMRT as well as tomotherapy can deliver efficient doses to target volumes while delivering dose to the kidneys in a fashion that is different from a conventional technique and is clearly advantageous in a small number of patients. An advantage for the majority of patients is likely with the normal tissue complication probability data presented in this series, but, given the uncertainty of the reaction of the kidney to inhomogeneous dose distributions, cannot be considered unequivocal at the moment. Different technical limitations apply to the different IMRT techniques. The choice of approach is therefore determined by departmental circumstances.

Optimization of dose distributions for adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy of gastric cancer by IMRT.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Locoregional relapse is a problem frequently encountered with advanced gastric cancer. Data from the randomized Intergroup trial 116 suggest effectiveness of adjuvant radiochemotherapy, albeit with significant toxicity. The potential of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) to reduce toxicity by significantly reducing maximum and median doses to organs at risk while still applying sufficient dose to the target volume in the upper abdomen was studied. PATIENT AND METHODS: For a typical configuration of target volumes and organs, a step-and-shoot IMRT plan (eight beam orientations), developed as a class solution for treatment of tumors in the upper abdomen (Figures 1 to 3), a conventional plan, a combination of the conventional plan with a kidney-sparing boost plan, and a conventional plan with noncoplanar ap and pa fields for improved kidney sparing were compared with respect to coverage of target volume and dose to organs at risk with a dose of 45 Gy delivered as the median dose to the target volume. RESULTS: When using the conventional three-dimensionally planned box techniques, the right kidney could be kept below tolerance, but median dose to the left kidney amounted to between 14.8 and 26.9 Gy, depending on the plan. IMRT reduced the median dose to the left kidney to 10.5 Gy, while still keeping the dose to the right kidney < 8 Gy. Liver was spared better with IMRT. Dose to the lungs was not significantly different, and dose to the spinal cord was higher (but well below tolerance) with IMRT. The dose distribution within the target volume was less homogeneous than for the conventional plans. With regard to target coverage, > 90% of prescription dose were delivered to > 90% of target volume with IMRT (Table 1). CONCLUSION: IMRT has the potential to deliver efficient doses to target volumes in the upper abdomen, while delivering dose to organs at risk in a more advantageous fashion than a conventional technique. For clinical implementation, the possibility of extensive organ motion in the upper abdomen has to be taken into account for treatment planning and patient positioning. The multitude of potential risks related to its application has to be the subject of thorough follow-up and further studies.