skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: A Dosimetric Evaluation of Conventional Helmet Field Irradiation Versus Two-Field Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Technique

Abstract

Purpose: To compare dosimetric differences between conventional two-beam helmet field irradiation (external beam radiotherapy, EBRT) of the brain and a two-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) technique. Methods and Materials: Ten patients who received helmet field irradiation at our institution were selected for study. External beam radiotherapy portals were planned per usual practice. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy fields were created using the identical field angles as the EBRT portals. Each brain was fully contoured along with the spinal cord to the bottom of the C2 vertebral body. This volume was then expanded symmetrically by 0.5 cm to construct the planning target volume. An IMRT plan was constructed using uniform optimization constraints. For both techniques, the nominal prescribed dose was 3,000 cGy in 10 fractions of 300 cGy using 6-MV photons. Comparative dose-volume histograms were generated for each patient and analyzed. Results: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy improved dose uniformity over EBRT for whole brain radiotherapy. The mean percentage of brain receiving >105% of dose was reduced from 29.3% with EBRT to 0.03% with IMRT. The mean maximum dose was reduced from 3,378 cGy (113%) for EBRT to 3,162 cGy (105%) with IMRT. The mean percent volume receiving at least 98% of the prescribed dose was 99.5% formore » the conventional technique and 100% for IMRT. Conclusions: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy reduces dose inhomogeneity, particularly for the midline frontal lobe structures where hot spots occur with conventional two-field EBRT. More study needs to be done addressing the clinical implications of optimizing dose uniformity and its effect on long-term cognitive function in selected long-lived patients.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [2];  [3]
  1. Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT (United States)
  2. (United States)
  3. Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT (United States) and Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT (United States). E-mail: jonathan.knisely@yale.edu
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
20951685
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 68; Journal Issue: 2; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.004; PII: S0360-3016(06)03595-4; Copyright (c) 2007 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, Netherlands, All rights reserved; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; BEAMS; BRAIN; DOSIMETRY; HOT SPOTS; IRRADIATION; METASTASES; OPTIMIZATION; PATIENTS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; SPINAL CORD

Citation Formats

Yu, James B., Shiao, Stephen L., Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT, and Knisely, Jonathan. A Dosimetric Evaluation of Conventional Helmet Field Irradiation Versus Two-Field Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Technique. United States: N. p., 2007. Web. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.004.
Yu, James B., Shiao, Stephen L., Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT, & Knisely, Jonathan. A Dosimetric Evaluation of Conventional Helmet Field Irradiation Versus Two-Field Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Technique. United States. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.004.
Yu, James B., Shiao, Stephen L., Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT, and Knisely, Jonathan. Fri . "A Dosimetric Evaluation of Conventional Helmet Field Irradiation Versus Two-Field Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Technique". United States. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.004.
@article{osti_20951685,
title = {A Dosimetric Evaluation of Conventional Helmet Field Irradiation Versus Two-Field Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy Technique},
author = {Yu, James B. and Shiao, Stephen L. and Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT and Knisely, Jonathan},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To compare dosimetric differences between conventional two-beam helmet field irradiation (external beam radiotherapy, EBRT) of the brain and a two-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) technique. Methods and Materials: Ten patients who received helmet field irradiation at our institution were selected for study. External beam radiotherapy portals were planned per usual practice. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy fields were created using the identical field angles as the EBRT portals. Each brain was fully contoured along with the spinal cord to the bottom of the C2 vertebral body. This volume was then expanded symmetrically by 0.5 cm to construct the planning target volume. An IMRT plan was constructed using uniform optimization constraints. For both techniques, the nominal prescribed dose was 3,000 cGy in 10 fractions of 300 cGy using 6-MV photons. Comparative dose-volume histograms were generated for each patient and analyzed. Results: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy improved dose uniformity over EBRT for whole brain radiotherapy. The mean percentage of brain receiving >105% of dose was reduced from 29.3% with EBRT to 0.03% with IMRT. The mean maximum dose was reduced from 3,378 cGy (113%) for EBRT to 3,162 cGy (105%) with IMRT. The mean percent volume receiving at least 98% of the prescribed dose was 99.5% for the conventional technique and 100% for IMRT. Conclusions: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy reduces dose inhomogeneity, particularly for the midline frontal lobe structures where hot spots occur with conventional two-field EBRT. More study needs to be done addressing the clinical implications of optimizing dose uniformity and its effect on long-term cognitive function in selected long-lived patients.},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.004},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 2,
volume = 68,
place = {United States},
year = {Fri Jun 01 00:00:00 EDT 2007},
month = {Fri Jun 01 00:00:00 EDT 2007}
}
  • Purpose: To compare the dose distribution to targeted and nontargeted tissues in Hodgkin's lymphoma patients using conventional radiotherapy (CRT), intensity-modulated RT (IMRT), and three-dimensional proton RT (3D-PRT). Methods and Materials: CRT, IMRT, and 3D-PRT treatment plans delivering 30 cobalt Gray equivalent (CGE)/Gy to an involved nodal field were created for 9 Stage II Hodgkin's lymphoma patients (n = 27 plans). The dosimetric endpoints were compared. Results: The planning target volume was adequately treated using all three techniques. The IMRT plan produced the most conformal high-dose distribution; however, the 3D-PRT plan delivered the lowest mean dose to nontarget tissues, including themore » breast, lung, and total body. The relative reduction in the absolute lung volume receiving doses of 4-16 CGE/Gy for 3D-PRT compared with CRT ranged from 26% to 37% (p < .05), and the relative reduction in the absolute lung volume receiving doses of 4-10 CGE/Gy for 3D-PRT compared with IMRT was 48-65% (p < .05). The relative reduction in absolute total body volume receiving 4-30 CGE/Gy for 3D-PRT compared with CRT was 47% (p < .05). The relative reduction in absolute total body volume receiving a dose of 4 CGE/Gy for 3D-PRT compared with IMRT was 63% (p = .03). The mean dose to the breast was significantly less for 3D-PRT than for either IMRT or CRT (p = .03) The mean dose and absolute volume receiving 4-30 CGE/Gy for the heart, thyroid, and salivary glands were similar for the three modalities. Conclusion: In this favorable subset of Hodgkin's lymphoma patients without disease in or below the hila, 3D-PRT significantly reduced the dose to the breast, lung, and total body. These observed dosimetric advantages might improve the clinical outcomes of Hodgkin's lymphoma patients by reducing the risk of late radiation effects related to low-to-moderate doses in nontargeted tissues.« less
  • Purpose: To compare bone marrow-sparing intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy (BMS-IMRT) with conventional (four-field box and anteroposterior-posteroanterior [AP-PA]) techniques in the treatment of cervical cancer. Methods and Materials: The data from 7 cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent chemotherapy and IMRT without BMS were analyzed and compared with data using four-field box and AP-PA techniques. All plans were normalized to cover the planning target volume with the 99% isodose line. The clinical target volume consisted of the pelvic and presacral lymph nodes, uterus and cervix, upper vagina, and parametrial tissue. Normal tissues included bowel, bladder, and pelvic bone marrow (PBM), which comprisedmore » the lumbosacral spine and ilium and the ischium, pubis, and proximal femora (lower pelvis bone marrow). Dose-volume histograms for the planning target volume and normal tissues were compared for BMS-IMRT vs. four-field box and AP-PA plans. Results: BMS-IMRT was superior to the four-field box technique in reducing the dose to the PBM, small bowel, rectum, and bladder. Compared with AP-PA plans, BMS-IMRT reduced the PBM volume receiving a dose >16.4 Gy. BMS-IMRT reduced the volume of ilium, lower pelvis bone marrow, and bowel receiving a dose >27.7, >18.7, and >21.1 Gy, respectively, but increased dose below these thresholds compared with the AP-PA plans. BMS-IMRT reduced the volume of lumbosacral spine bone marrow, rectum, small bowel, and bladder at all dose levels in all 7 patients. Conclusion: BMS-IMRT reduced irradiation of PBM compared with the four-field box technique. Compared with the AP-PA technique, BMS-IMRT reduced lumbosacral spine bone marrow irradiation and reduced the volume of PBM irradiated to high doses. Therefore BMS-IMRT might reduce acute hematologic toxicity compared with conventional techniques.« less
  • Purpose: To compare the results of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with those of two-dimensional conventional radiotherapy (2D-CRT) in the treatment of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods and Materials: A retrospective review of data from 1,276 patients with biopsy-proven, nonmetastatic NPC was performed. All patients had undergone magnetic resonance imaging and were staged according to the sixth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging criteria. Radiotherapy was the primary treatment for all patients. Results: Of the 1,276 patients, 512 were treated with IMRT and 764 with 2D-CRT. The 5-year actuarial local relapse-free survival (LRFS), the nodal relapse-free survival (NRFS),more » the distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and the disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 92.7%, 97.0%, 84.0%, and 75.9%, respectively, for the IMRT group, and 86.8%, 95.5%, 82.6%, and 71.4%, respectively, for the 2D-CRT group. In stage T1 patients, improvement of LRFS in the IMRT group was even significantly higher than in the 2D-CRT group (100% vs. 94.4%; p = 0.016). A trend of improvement of DFS was observed in the IMRT group compared with the 2D-CRT group but without reaching statistical significance. NRFS and DMFS rates were similar in the two groups. Conclusions: A greater improvement of treatment results with IMRT than with 2D-CRT was demonstrated primarily by achieving a higher local tumor control rate in NPC patients, especially in the early T stage patients. The goal of better control of both local failure in advanced, nonmetastatic NPC patients and of distant failure should be addressed in future studies.« less
  • We report on a retrospective dosimetric study, comparing 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and hybrid intensity modulated radiotherapy (hIMRT). We evaluated plans based on their planning target volume coverage, dose homogeneity, dose to organs at risk (OARs) and exposure of normal tissue to radiation. The Homogeneity Index (HI) was used to assess the dose homogeneity in the target region, and we describe a new index, the normal tissue index (NTI), to assess the dose in the normal tissue inside the tangent treatment portal. Plans were generated for 25 early-stage breast cancer patients, using a hIMRT technique. These were compared with themore » 3DCRT plans of the treatment previously received by the patients. Plan quality was evaluated using the HI, NTI and dose to OARs. The hIMRT technique was significantly more homogenous than the 3DCRT technique, while maintaining target coverage. The hIMRT technique was also superior at minimising the amount of tissue receiving D{sub 105%} and above (P < 0.0001). The ipsilateral lung and contralateral breast maximum were significantly lower in the hIMRT plans (P < 0.05 and P < 0.005), but the 3DCRT technique achieved a lower mean heart dose in left-sided breast cancer patients (P < 0.05). Hybrid intensity modulated radiotherapy plans achieved improved dose homogeneity compared to the 3DCRT plans and superior outcome with regard to dose to normal tissues. We propose that the addition of both HI and NTI in evaluating the quality of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) breast plans provides clinically relevant comparators which more accurately reflect the new paradigm of treatment goals and outcomes in the era of breast IMRT.« less
  • This study evaluated the dosimetric difference between volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and conventional fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (cIMRT) in whole-ventricular irradiation. Computed tomography simulation data for 13 patients were acquired to create plans for VMAT and cIMRT. In both plans, the same median dose (100% = 24 Gy) was prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV), which comprised a tumor bed and whole ventricles. During optimization, doses to the normal brain and body were reduced, provided that the dose constraints of the target coverage were satisfied. The dose-volume indices of the PTV, normal brain, and body as well as monitor unitsmore » were compared between the 2 techniques by using paired t-tests. The results showed no significant difference in the homogeneity index (0.064 vs 0.065; p = 0.824) of the PTV and conformation number (0.78 vs 0.77; p = 0.065) between the 2 techniques. In the normal brain and body, the dose-volume indices showed no significant difference between the 2 techniques, except for an increase in the volume receiving a low dose in VMAT; the absolute volume of the normal brain and body receiving 1 Gy of radiation significantly increased in VMAT by 1.6% and 8.3%, respectively, compared with that in cIMRT (1044 vs 1028 mL for the normal brain and 3079.2 vs 2823.3 mL for the body; p<0.001). The number of monitor units to deliver a 2.0-Gy fraction was significantly reduced in VMAT compared with that in cIMRT (354 vs 873, respectively; p<0.001). In conclusion, VMAT delivers IMRT to complex target volumes such as whole ventricles with fewer monitor units, while maintaining target coverage and conformal isodose distribution comparable to cIMRT; however, in addition to those characteristics, the fact that the volume of the normal brain and body receiving a low dose would increase in VMAT should be considered.« less