No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Dosimetric case study of 3-D FiF vs. VMAT techniques in the treatment of H/N tumour
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 August 2023
Abstract
A case study comparing three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy with field-in-field (FiF) technique and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for head/neck (H/N) irradiation, evaluating the differences in the treatment techniques and low doses to critical structures. Compared to VMAT plan, 3D FIF plan offers similar planning target volume coverage and acceptable organs at risk dose. Therefore, 3D FIF is still a feasible alternative for some centres unqualified for IMRT/VMAT worldwide.
- Type
- Case Study
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Transition from 2-D Radiotherapy to 3-D Conformal and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy: IAEA, 2008. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1588_web.pdf.Google Scholar
IAEA. Human Health Series No.14, Planning National Radiotherapy Services: A Practical Tool, 2010. https://www.iaea.org/publications/8419/planning-national-radiotherapy-services-a-practical-tool.Google Scholar
Afrin, K, Ahmad, S. 3D conformal, IMRT and VMAT for the treatment of head and neck cancer: a brief literature review. J Radiother Pract 2022; 21 (2): 259–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrassi, MY, Bentayeb, F, Malisan, MR. Comparative study of four advanced 3d-conformal radiation therapy treatment planning techniques for head and neck cancer. J Med Phys 2013; 38 (2): 98–105.Google ScholarPubMed
ICRU. ICRU Report 62: Prescribing, Recording and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy (Supplement to ICRU Report 50). Bethesda: ICRU, 1999.Google Scholar
Gutiontov, SI, Shin, EJ, Lok, B, Lee, NY, Cabanillas, R. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck surgeons. Head Neck 2016; 38 (Suppl 1): E2368–E2373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, K, Das, P, Olanrewaju, AM et al. Automation of radiation treatment planning for rectal cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2022; 23 (9): e13712. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.12539.pdf.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Portaluri, M, Fucilli, FI, Castagna, R et al. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for locally advanced (Stage II and worse) head-and-neck cancer: dosimetric and clinical evaluation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 66 (4): 1036–1043.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhu, J. Generation of wedge-shaped dose distributions through dynamic multileaf collimator dose delivery. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2005 Summer; 6 (3): 37–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prabhakar, R, Julka, P K, Rath, G K. Can field-in-field technique replace wedge filter in radiotherapy treatment planning: a comparative analysis in various treatment sites. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2008; 31: 317–324. doi: 10.1007/BF03178601
CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onal, C, Sonmez, A, Arslan, G et al. Dosimetric comparison of the field-in-field technique and tangential wedged beams for breast irradiation. Jpn J Radiol 2012; 30 (3): 218–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mell, L K, Mehrotra, A K, Mundt, A J. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy use in the U.S., 2004. Cancer 2005; 104: 1296–1303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, E E, Hanley, J, Bayouth, J et al. Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys 2009; 36 (9): 4197–4212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krzysztof, C, Wojciech, B, Joanna, R et al. Dynamic wedges – dosimetry and quality control. Rep Pract Oncol. Radiother 2006; 11 (2): 67–75.Google Scholar
Teoh, M, Clark, CH, Wood, K, Whitaker, S, Nisbet, A. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: a review of current literature and clinical use in practice. Br J Radiol 2011; 84 (1007): 967–996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Njeh, CF. Enhanced dynamic wedge output factors for Varian 2300CD and the case for a reference database. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2015; 16 (5): 271–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed