Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T10:31:37.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dosimetric comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and field-in-field (FIF) technique for head-and-neck cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2020

Nguyen Thi Lan ,
Hoang Dai Viet ,
Duong Thanh Tai Open the ORCID record for Duong Thanh Tai [Opens in a new window]  and
James C. L. Chow
Nguyen Thi Lan
Affiliation:
Department of Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine, Radiation Oncology Center, Baichay Hospital, Quang Ninh, Vietnam
Hoang Dai Viet
Affiliation:
Department of Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine, Radiation Oncology Center, Baichay Hospital, Quang Ninh, Vietnam
Duong Thanh Tai*
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial Electronics and Biomedical Engineering, HCMC University of Technology and Education, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam
James C. L. Chow
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Department of Physics, Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Duong Thanh Tai, Department of Industrial Electronics and Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education, 01 Vo Van Ngan Street, Thu Duc District, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam. Tel: +84 945569139. E-mails: taidt@hcmute.edu.vn; thanhtaiphys@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose:

This study compared the plan dosimetry between the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and field-in-field (FIF) technique for head-and-neck cancer using the Elekta Monaco treatment planning system (TPS).

Materials and methods:

A total of 20 head-and-neck cancer patients were selected in this study. IMRT and FIF plans for the patients were created on the Monaco TPS (ver. 5.11.02) using the 6-MV photon beam generated by the Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. The dose–volume histograms, maximum doses, minimum doses, mean doses of the target volumes and organs-at-risk (OARs), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) and monitor units (MUs) were determined for each IMRT and FIF plan. All IMRT plans passed the patient-specific quality assurance tests from the 2D diode array measurements (MatriXX Evolution System, IBA Dosimetry, Germany).

Results:

The results showed that the dose distribution to the target volumes of IMRT plans was better than FIF plans, while the dose (mean or max dose) to the OAR was significantly lower than FIF plan, respectively. IMRT and FIF resulted in planning target volume coverage with mean dose of 71·32 ± 0·76 and 73·12 ± 0·62 Gy, respectively, and HI values of 0·08 ± 0·01 (IMRT) and 0·19 ± 0·06 (FIF). The CI for IMRT was 0·98 ± 0·01 and FIF was 0·97 ± 0·01. For the spinal cord tolerance (maximum dose < 45 Gy), IMRT resulted in 39·85 ± 2·04 Gy compared to 41·37 ± 2·42 Gy for FIF. In addition, the mean doses to the parotid grand were 27·27 ± 7·48 and 48·68 ± 1·62 Gy for the IMRT and FIF plans, respectively. Significantly more MUs were required in IMRT plans than FIF plans (on average, 846 ± 100 MU in IMRT and 467 ± 41 MU in FIF).

Conclusions:

It is concluded that the IMRT technique could provide a better plan dosimetry than the FIF technique for head-and-neck patients.

Keywords

Field-in-field (FIF)intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)treatment planning
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 153 - 158
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ghosh, G, Gupta, G, Malviya, A, Saroj, D. Comparison three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy versus intensity modulated radiation therapy in local control of head and neck cancer. J Cancer Res Ther 2018; 14 (6): 1412.Google ScholarPubMed
Delaney, G, Jacob, S, Barton, M. Estimating the optimal radiotherapy utilization for carcinoma of the central nervous system, thyroid carcinoma, and carcinoma of unknown primary origin from evidence-based clinical guidelines. Cancer 2006; 106 (2): 453–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ercan, T, Iğdem, S, Alço, G et al. Dosimetric comparison of field in field intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique with conformal radiotherapy techniques in breast cancer. Jpn J Radiol 2010; 28 (4): 283–289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bortfeld, T. IMRT: a review and preview. Phys Med Biol 2006; 51 (13): R363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tai, DT, Son, ND, Loan, TTH, Anson, HPW. Quality assurance of the jaws only-intensity modulated radiation therapy plans for head-and-neck cancer. Physica Med 2017; 38: 148–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tai, DT, Son, ND, Loan, TTH, Trang, NTH. Initial experiences of applying the jaws-only IMRT technique in Dong Nai General Hospital, Vietnam. International Conference on the Development of Biomedical Engineering in Vietnam. Singapore: Springer, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishimura, Y, Ritsuko, K. Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy: Clinical Evidence and Techniques, Tokyo: Springer, 2015.Google Scholar
Mundt, AJ, Roeske, JC. Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy: A Clinical Perspective, USA: PMPH-USA, 2005 Google Scholar
Hosseini, SM, Momennezhad, M. Dosimetric comparison of conventional and field-in-field techniques in early stage breast cancer radiotherapy. Iran J Medical Phys. Special Issue-12th. Iranian Congress of Medical Physics 2018; 15: 19–19.Google Scholar
Koksal, C, Kesen, N, Akbas, U et al. Dosimetric comparison of 3-dimensional conformal and intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques for whole breast irradiation in the prone and supine positions. Int J Radiat Res 2017; 15 (4): 353–362.Google 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.Google ScholarPubMed
Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Photon-Beam Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT): Contents. J ICRU 2010; 10 (1).Google Scholar
Lee, N, Kramer, A, Xia, P. RTOG 0225: a Phase II Study of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT)+/-Chemotherapy for Nasopharyngeal Cancer. Philadelphia, PA: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, 2003.Google Scholar
Paddick, I. A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans. J Neurosurg 2000; 93 (Suppl 3): 219–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chao, KS, Deasy, JO, Markman, J et al. A prospective study of salivary function sparing in patients with head-and-neck cancers receiving intensity-modulated or three-dimensional radiation therapy: initial results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 49 (4): 907–916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maes, A, Weltens, C, Flamen, P et al. Preservation of parotid function with uncomplicated conformal radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2002; 63 (2): 203–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisbruch, A, Kim, HM, Terrell, JE et al. Xerostomia and its predictors following parotid-sparing irradiation of head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 50 (3): 695–704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henson, BS, Inglehart, MR, Eisbruch, A et al. Preserved salivary output and xerostomia-related quality of life in head and neck cancer patients receiving parotid-sparing radiotherapy. Oral Oncol 2001; 37 (1): 84–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Münter, MW, Karger, CP, Hoffner, SG et al. Evaluation of salivary gland function after treatment of head-and-neck tumors with intensity-modulated radiotherapy by quantitative pertechnetate scintigraphy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 58 (1): 175–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blanco, AI, Chao, KS, Naqa, I et al. Dose–volume modeling of salivary function in patients with head-and-neck cancer receiving radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 62 (4): 1055–1069.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parliament, MB, Scrimger, RA, Anderson, SG et al. Preservation of oral health-related quality of life and salivary flow rates after inverse-planned intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 58 (3): 663–673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tham, I, Jiade, L. Post-treatment follow-up of patients with nasopharyngeal cancer, In Nasopharyngeal Cancer. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2010: 233–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tai, DT, Oanh, LT, Son, ND, Loan, TTH, Chow, JCL. Dosimetric and Monte Carlo verification of jaws-only IMRT plans calculated by the Collapsed Cone Convolution algorithm for head and neck cancers. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2019; 24 (1): 105–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paudel, NR, Narayanasamy, G, Han, EY et al. Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison for quality assurance of IMRT and VMAT plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2017; 18 (5): 237–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tai, DT, Oanh, LT, Son, ND, Loan, TTH. Evaluation of jaws-only intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment plans using Octavius 4D system. Pol J Med Phys Eng 2018; 24 (2): 75–78.Google Scholar