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

Title: Clinical experience transitioning from IMRT to VMAT for head and neck cancer

Abstract

To quantify clinical differences for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) versus intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in terms of dosimetric endpoints and planning and delivery time, twenty head and neck cancer patients have been considered for VMAT using Nucletron Oncentra MasterPlan delivered via an Elekta linear accelerator. Differences in planning time between IMRT and VMAT were estimated accounting for both optimization and calculation. The average delivery time per patient was obtained retrospectively using the record and verify software. For the dosimetric comparison, all contoured organs at risk (OARs) and planning target volumes (PTVs) were evaluated. Of the 20 cases considered, 14 had VMAT plans approved. Six VMAT plans were rejected due to unacceptable dose to OARs. In terms of optimization time, there was minimal difference between the two modalities. The dose calculation time was significantly longer for VMAT, 4 minutes per 358 degree arc versus 2 minutes for an entire IMRT plan. The overall delivery time was reduced by 9.2 ± 3.9 minutes for VMAT (51.4 ± 15.6%). For the dosimetric comparison of the 14 clinically acceptable plans, there was almost no statistical difference between the VMAT and IMRT. There was also a reduction in monitor units of approximately 32%more » from IMRT to VMAT with both modalities demonstrating comparable quality assurance results. VMAT provides comparable coverage of target volumes while sparing OARs for the majority of head and neck cases. In cases where high dose modulation was required for OARs, a clinically acceptable plan was only achievable with IMRT. Due to the long calculation times, VMAT plans can cause delays during planning but marked improvements in delivery time reduce patient treatment times and the risk of intra-fraction motion.« less

Authors:
 [1]; ;  [1]; ;  [2];  [3];  [1]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
  2. Department of Otolaryngology, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
  3. Department of Pathology, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22262808
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Dosimetry; Journal Volume: 38; Journal Issue: 2; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2013 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; EXTERNAL BEAM RADIATION THERAPY; HEAD; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; NECK; NEOPLASMS; PLANNING; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RADIATION DOSES

Citation Formats

Studenski, Matthew T., E-mail: matthew.studenski@jeffersonhospital.org, Bar-Ad, Voichita, Siglin, Joshua, Cognetti, David, Curry, Joseph, Tuluc, Madalina, and Harrison, Amy S.. Clinical experience transitioning from IMRT to VMAT for head and neck cancer. United States: N. p., 2013. Web. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2012.10.009.
Studenski, Matthew T., E-mail: matthew.studenski@jeffersonhospital.org, Bar-Ad, Voichita, Siglin, Joshua, Cognetti, David, Curry, Joseph, Tuluc, Madalina, & Harrison, Amy S.. Clinical experience transitioning from IMRT to VMAT for head and neck cancer. United States. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2012.10.009.
Studenski, Matthew T., E-mail: matthew.studenski@jeffersonhospital.org, Bar-Ad, Voichita, Siglin, Joshua, Cognetti, David, Curry, Joseph, Tuluc, Madalina, and Harrison, Amy S.. Mon . "Clinical experience transitioning from IMRT to VMAT for head and neck cancer". United States. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2012.10.009.
@article{osti_22262808,
title = {Clinical experience transitioning from IMRT to VMAT for head and neck cancer},
author = {Studenski, Matthew T., E-mail: matthew.studenski@jeffersonhospital.org and Bar-Ad, Voichita and Siglin, Joshua and Cognetti, David and Curry, Joseph and Tuluc, Madalina and Harrison, Amy S.},
abstractNote = {To quantify clinical differences for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) versus intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in terms of dosimetric endpoints and planning and delivery time, twenty head and neck cancer patients have been considered for VMAT using Nucletron Oncentra MasterPlan delivered via an Elekta linear accelerator. Differences in planning time between IMRT and VMAT were estimated accounting for both optimization and calculation. The average delivery time per patient was obtained retrospectively using the record and verify software. For the dosimetric comparison, all contoured organs at risk (OARs) and planning target volumes (PTVs) were evaluated. Of the 20 cases considered, 14 had VMAT plans approved. Six VMAT plans were rejected due to unacceptable dose to OARs. In terms of optimization time, there was minimal difference between the two modalities. The dose calculation time was significantly longer for VMAT, 4 minutes per 358 degree arc versus 2 minutes for an entire IMRT plan. The overall delivery time was reduced by 9.2 ± 3.9 minutes for VMAT (51.4 ± 15.6%). For the dosimetric comparison of the 14 clinically acceptable plans, there was almost no statistical difference between the VMAT and IMRT. There was also a reduction in monitor units of approximately 32% from IMRT to VMAT with both modalities demonstrating comparable quality assurance results. VMAT provides comparable coverage of target volumes while sparing OARs for the majority of head and neck cases. In cases where high dose modulation was required for OARs, a clinically acceptable plan was only achievable with IMRT. Due to the long calculation times, VMAT plans can cause delays during planning but marked improvements in delivery time reduce patient treatment times and the risk of intra-fraction motion.},
doi = {10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2012.10.009},
journal = {Medical Dosimetry},
number = 2,
volume = 38,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2013},
month = {Mon Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2013}
}
  • Purpose: To determine differences in clinical outcomes using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or a standard low neck field (LNF) to treat low neck. Methods and Materials: This is a retrospective, single-institution study. Ninety-one patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck were treated with curative intent. According to physician preference, some patients were treated with LNF (Planning Target Volume 3) field using a single anterior photon field matched to the IMRT field. Field junctions were not feathered. The endpoints were time to failure and use of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube (as a surrogate of laryngeal edema causingmore » aspiration), and analysis was done with {chi}{sup 2} and log-rank tests. Results: Median follow-up was 21 months (range, 2-89 months). Median age was 60 years. Thirty-seven patients (41%) were treated with LNF, 84% were Stage III or IV. A PEG tube was required in 30%, as opposed to 33% without the use of LNF. Node 2 or 3 neck disease was treated more commonly without LNF (38% vs. 24%, p = 0.009). Failures occurred in 12 patients (13%). Only 1 patient treated with LNF failed regionally, 4.5 cm above the match line. The 3-year disease-free survival rate was 87% and 79% with LNF and without LNF, respectively (p = 0.2), and the 3-year LR failure rate was 4% and 21%, respectively (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Using LNF to treat the low neck did not increase the risk of regional failure 'in early T and early N diseases' or decrease PEG tube requirements.« less
  • Purpose: The advent of the MR-Linac enables real-time and high soft tissue contrast image guidance in radiation therapy (RT) delivery. Potential hot-spots at air-tissue interfaces, such as the sphenoid sinus, in RT for head and neck cancer (HNC), could potentially occur due to the electron return effect (ERE). In this study, we investigate the dosimetric effects of ERE on the dose distribution at air-tissues interfaces in HNC IMRT treatment planning. Methods: IMRT plans were generated based on planning CT’s acquired for HNC cases (nasopharynx, base of skull and paranasal sinus) using a research planning system (Monaco, v5.09.06, Elekta) employing Montemore » Carlo dose calculations with or without the presence of a transverse magnetic field (TMF). The dose in the air cavity was calculated in a 1 & 2 mm thick tissue layer, while the dose to the skin was calculated in a 1, 3 and 5 mm thick tissue layer. The maximum dose received in 1 cc volume, D1cc, were collected at different TMF strengths. Plan qualities generated with or without TMF or with increasing TMF were compared in terms of commonly-used dose-volume parameters (DVPs). Results: Variations in DVPs between plans with and without a TMF present were found to be within 5% of the planning CT. The presence of a TMF results in <5% changes in sinus air tissue interface. The largest skin dose differences with and without TMF were found within 1 mm of the skin surface Conclusion: The presence of a TMF results in practically insignificant changes in HNC IMRT plan quality, except for skin dose. Planning optimization with skin DV constraints could reduce the skin doses. This research was partially supported by Elekta Inc. (Crowley, U.K.)« less
  • One hundred outpatients with proved advanced epidermoid carcinoma of the head and neck underwent complete treatment with concomitant hydroxyurea and irradiation therapy. Seventy-three patients exhibited complete regression of the tumor. All patients became candidates for operation after completion of combination therapy, although not all patients accepted surgery.
  • Proton beam radiation has been used for cancer treatment since the 1950s, but recent increasing interest in this form of therapy and the construction of hospital-based and clinic-based facilities for its delivery have greatly increased both the number of patients and the variety of tumors being treated with proton therapy. The mass of proton particles and their unique physical properties (ie, the Bragg peak) allow proton therapy to spare normal tissues distal to the tumor target from incidental irradiation. Initial observations show that proton therapy is particularly useful for treating tumors in challenging locations close to nontarget critical structures. Specifically,more » improvements in local control outcomes for patients with chordoma, chonodrosarcoma, and tumors in the sinonasal regions have been reported in series using proton. Improved local control and survival outcomes for patients with cancer of the head and neck region have also been seen with the advent of improvements in better imaging and multimodality therapy comprising surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. However, aggressive local therapy in the proximity of critical normal structures to tumors in the head and neck region may produce debilitating early and late toxic effects. Great interest has been expressed in evaluating whether proton therapy can improve outcomes, especially early and late toxicity, when used in the treatment of head and neck malignancies. This review summarizes the progress made to date in addressing this question.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the severity of cetuximab-induced skin rash and its correlation with clinical outcome and late skin toxicity in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treated with chemoradiation therapy and cetuximab. Methods and Materials: Analysis included patients who received loading dose and ≥1 cetuximab dose concurrent with definitive chemoradiation therapy (70 Gy + cisplatin) or postoperative chemoradiation therapy (60-66 Gy + docetaxel or cisplatin). Results: Six hundred two patients were analyzed; 383 (63.6%) developed grade 2 to 4 cetuximab rash. Patients manifesting grade 2 to 4 rash had younger age (P<.001), fewer pack-years smoking history (P<.001), were more likely to be males (P=.04), and hadmore » p16-negative (P=.04) oropharyngeal tumors (P=.003). In univariate analysis, grade 2 to 4 rash was associated with better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, P<.001) and progression-free survival (HR 0.75, P=.02), and reduced distant metastasis rate (HR 0.61, P=.03), but not local-regional failure (HR 0.79, P=.16) relative to grade 0 to 1 rash. In multivariable analysis, HRs for overall survival, progression-free survival, distant metastasis, and local-regional failure were, respectively, 0.68 (P=.008), 0.85 (P=.21), 0.64 (P=.06), and 0.89 (P=.48). Grade ≥2 rash was associated with improved survival in p16-negative patients (HR 0.28 [95% confidence interval 0.11-0.74]) but not in p16-positive patients (HR 1.10 [0.42-2.89]) (P=.05 for interaction). Twenty-five percent of patients with grade 2 to 4 acute in-field radiation dermatitis experienced grade 2 to 4 late skin fibrosis, versus 14% of patients with grade 0 to 1 acute in-field radiation dermatitis (P=.002). Conclusion: Grade 2 to 4 cetuximab rash was associated with better survival, possibly due to reduction of distant metastasis. This observation was noted mainly in p16-negative patients. Grade 2 to 4 acute in-field radiation dermatitis was associated with higher rate of late grade 2 to 4 skin fibrosis.« less