IGRT versus non-IGRT for postoperative head-and-neck IMRT patients

• Verfasst von: Schwarz, Michael [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Huber, Peter E. [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Debus, Jürgen [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Stoiber, Eva Maria [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: IGRT versus non-IGRT for postoperative head-and-neck IMRT patients
• Titelzusatz: dosimetric consequences arising from a PTV margin reduction
• Verf.angabe: Michael Schwarz, Kristina Giske, Armin Stoll, Simeon Nill, Peter E. Huber, Jürgen Debus, Rolf Bendl and Eva M. Stoiber
• E-Jahr: 2012
• Jahr: Aug 8, 2012
• Umfang: 7 S.
• Fussnoten: Gesehen am 30.05.2018
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Radiation oncology
• Ort Quelle: London : BioMed Central, 2006
• Jahr Quelle: 2012
• Band/Heft Quelle: 7(2012) Artikel-Nummer 133, 7 Seiten
• ISSN Quelle: 1748-717X
• DOI: doi:10.1186/1748-717X-7-133
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• K10plus-PPN: 1575842866

Abstract

Background To evaluate the impact of image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) versus non-image-guided radiation therapy (non-IGRT) on the dose to the clinical target volume (CTV) and the cervical spinal cord during fractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for head-and-neck cancer (HNC) patients. Material and Methods For detailed investigation, 4 exemplary patients with daily control-CT scans (total 118 CT scans) were analyzed. For the IGRT approach a target point correction (TPC) derived from a rigid registration focused to the high-dose region was used. In the non-IGRT setting, instead of a TPC, an additional cohort-based safety margin was applied. The dose distributions of the CTV and spinal cord were calculated on each control-CT and the resulting dose volume histograms (DVHs) were compared with the planned ones fraction by fraction. The D50 and D98 values for the CTV and the D5 values of the spinal cord were additionally reported. Results In general, the D50 and D98 histograms show no remarkable difference between both strategies. Yet, our detailed analysis also reveals differences in individual dose coverage worth inspection. Using IGRT, the D5 histograms show that the spinal cord less frequently receives a higher dose than planned compared to the non-IGRT setting. This effect is even more pronounced when looking at the curve progressions of the respective DVHs. Conclusions Both approaches are equally effective in maintaining CTV coverage. However, IGRT is beneficial in spinal cord sparing. The use of an additional margin in the non-IGRT approach frequently results in a higher dose to the spinal cord than originally planned. This implies that a margin reduction combined with an IGRT correction helps to maintain spinal cord dose sparing best as possible. Yet, a detailed analysis of the dosimetric consequences dependent on the used strategy is required, to detect single fractions with unacceptable dosimetric deviations.