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

Title: SU-E-T-25: A Dosimetric Comparison of Three-Dimension Conformal and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy in Esophageal Cancer

Abstract

Purpose: dosimetric comparison of 3DCRT and IMRT in 9 esophageal cancer. The aim of this paper is to know which of these two techniques is dosimetrically more favorable dosimetrically at both the CTV coverage and dose obtained in the relevant organs at risk, in this case, lungs and heart, as the spinal cord received in all cases below 45 Gy. Methods: we chose 9 patients from our center (CHN) with the same type of esophageal cancer and in which the prescribed dose was the same, 54 Gy. For these treatments we have used the same fields and the same angles (AP (0 °), OPD (225°–240°) and OPI (125°–135°)).All plans have been implemented using Eclipse (version 11.0) with AAA( Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm )(Version 11.0.31). Results: To analyze the coverage of the CTV, we have evaluated the D99% and found that the average dose received by 99% of CTV with IMRT is 53.8 ± 0.4 Gy (99.6% of the prescribed dose) and the mean value obtained with 3DCRT is 52.3 ± 0.6 Gy (96.8% of the prescribed dose).The last data analyzed was the D2% of PTV, a fact that gives us information on the maximum dose received by our PTV. D2% ofmore » the PTV for IMRT planning is 55.4 ± 0.4 Gy (102.6% of the prescribed dose) and with 3DCRT is 56.8 ± 0.7 Gy (105.2% of the prescribed dose).All parameters analyzed at risk organs (V30, V40, V45 and V50 for the case of heart and V5, V10, V15 and V20 for the case of the lungs) provide us irradiated volume percentages lower in IMRT than 3DCRT. Conclusion: IMRT provides a considerable improvement in the coverage of the CTV and the doses to organs at risk.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Navarra (Spain)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22545160
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; ALGORITHMS; ANISOTROPY; ESOPHAGUS; HEALTH HAZARDS; HEART; LUNGS; NEOPLASMS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Gallardo, N, Maneru, F, Fuentemilla, N, Olasolo, J, Gracia, M, Pellejero, S, Bragado, L, Lozares, S, Miquelez, S, and Martin, M. SU-E-T-25: A Dosimetric Comparison of Three-Dimension Conformal and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy in Esophageal Cancer. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4924386.
Gallardo, N, Maneru, F, Fuentemilla, N, Olasolo, J, Gracia, M, Pellejero, S, Bragado, L, Lozares, S, Miquelez, S, & Martin, M. SU-E-T-25: A Dosimetric Comparison of Three-Dimension Conformal and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy in Esophageal Cancer. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924386.
Gallardo, N, Maneru, F, Fuentemilla, N, Olasolo, J, Gracia, M, Pellejero, S, Bragado, L, Lozares, S, Miquelez, S, and Martin, M. Mon . "SU-E-T-25: A Dosimetric Comparison of Three-Dimension Conformal and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy in Esophageal Cancer". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924386.
@article{osti_22545160,
title = {SU-E-T-25: A Dosimetric Comparison of Three-Dimension Conformal and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy in Esophageal Cancer},
author = {Gallardo, N and Maneru, F and Fuentemilla, N and Olasolo, J and Gracia, M and Pellejero, S and Bragado, L and Lozares, S and Miquelez, S and Martin, M},
abstractNote = {Purpose: dosimetric comparison of 3DCRT and IMRT in 9 esophageal cancer. The aim of this paper is to know which of these two techniques is dosimetrically more favorable dosimetrically at both the CTV coverage and dose obtained in the relevant organs at risk, in this case, lungs and heart, as the spinal cord received in all cases below 45 Gy. Methods: we chose 9 patients from our center (CHN) with the same type of esophageal cancer and in which the prescribed dose was the same, 54 Gy. For these treatments we have used the same fields and the same angles (AP (0 °), OPD (225°–240°) and OPI (125°–135°)).All plans have been implemented using Eclipse (version 11.0) with AAA( Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm )(Version 11.0.31). Results: To analyze the coverage of the CTV, we have evaluated the D99% and found that the average dose received by 99% of CTV with IMRT is 53.8 ± 0.4 Gy (99.6% of the prescribed dose) and the mean value obtained with 3DCRT is 52.3 ± 0.6 Gy (96.8% of the prescribed dose).The last data analyzed was the D2% of PTV, a fact that gives us information on the maximum dose received by our PTV. D2% of the PTV for IMRT planning is 55.4 ± 0.4 Gy (102.6% of the prescribed dose) and with 3DCRT is 56.8 ± 0.7 Gy (105.2% of the prescribed dose).All parameters analyzed at risk organs (V30, V40, V45 and V50 for the case of heart and V5, V10, V15 and V20 for the case of the lungs) provide us irradiated volume percentages lower in IMRT than 3DCRT. Conclusion: IMRT provides a considerable improvement in the coverage of the CTV and the doses to organs at risk.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4924386},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 42,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015},
month = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015}
}