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

Title: Split-field vs extended-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans for oropharyngeal cancer: Which spares the larynx? Which spares the thyroid?

Abstract

Radiation of the low neck can be accomplished using split-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (sf-IMRT) or extended-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (ef-IMRT). We evaluated the effect of these treatment choices on target coverage and thyroid and larynx doses. Using data from 14 patients with cancers of the oropharynx, we compared the following 3 strategies for radiating the low neck: (1) extended-field IMRT, (2) traditional split-field IMRT with an initial cord-junction block to 40 Gy, followed by a full-cord block to 50 Gy, and (3) split-field IMRT with a full-cord block to 50 Gy. Patients were planned using each of these 3 techniques. To facilitate comparison, extended-field plans were normalized to deliver 50 Gy to 95% of the neck volume. Target coverage was assessed using the dose to 95% of the neck volume (D{sub 95}). Mean thyroid and larynx doses were computed. Extended-field IMRT was used as the reference arm; the mean larynx dose was 25.7 ± 7.4 Gy, and the mean thyroid dose was 28.6 ± 2.4 Gy. Split-field IMRT with 2-step blocking reduced laryngeal dose (mean larynx dose 15.2 ± 5.1 Gy) at the cost of a moderate reduction in target coverage (D{sub 95} 41.4 ± 14 Gy) and much highermore » thyroid dose (mean thyroid dose 44.7 ± 3.7 Gy). Split-field IMRT with initial full-cord block resulted in greater laryngeal sparing (mean larynx dose 14.2 ± 5.1 Gy) and only a moderately higher thyroid dose (mean thyroid dose 31 ± 8 Gy) but resulted in a significant reduction in target coverage (D{sub 95} 34.4 ± 15 Gy). Extended-field IMRT comprehensively covers the low neck and achieves acceptable thyroid and laryngeal sparing. Split-field IMRT with a full-cord block reduces laryngeal doses to less than 20 Gy and spares the thyroid, at the cost of substantially reduced coverage of the low neck. Traditional 2-step split-field IMRT similarly reduces the laryngeal dose but also reduces low-neck coverage and delivers very high doses to the thyroid.« less

Authors:
;  [1];  [2];  [1];  [1];  [3]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (United States)
  2. Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, OR (United States)
  3. (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22577876
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Dosimetry; Journal Volume: 41; Journal Issue: 2; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2016 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; 62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; LARYNX; NECK; NEOPLASMS; PATIENTS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; THYROID

Citation Formats

Yu, Yao, Chen, Josephine, Leary, Celeste I., Shugard, Erin, Yom, Sue S., E-mail: yoms@radonc.ucsf.edu, and Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Split-field vs extended-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans for oropharyngeal cancer: Which spares the larynx? Which spares the thyroid?. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.11.003.
Yu, Yao, Chen, Josephine, Leary, Celeste I., Shugard, Erin, Yom, Sue S., E-mail: yoms@radonc.ucsf.edu, & Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Split-field vs extended-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans for oropharyngeal cancer: Which spares the larynx? Which spares the thyroid?. United States. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.11.003.
Yu, Yao, Chen, Josephine, Leary, Celeste I., Shugard, Erin, Yom, Sue S., E-mail: yoms@radonc.ucsf.edu, and Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Fri . "Split-field vs extended-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans for oropharyngeal cancer: Which spares the larynx? Which spares the thyroid?". United States. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.11.003.
@article{osti_22577876,
title = {Split-field vs extended-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans for oropharyngeal cancer: Which spares the larynx? Which spares the thyroid?},
author = {Yu, Yao and Chen, Josephine and Leary, Celeste I. and Shugard, Erin and Yom, Sue S., E-mail: yoms@radonc.ucsf.edu and Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA},
abstractNote = {Radiation of the low neck can be accomplished using split-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (sf-IMRT) or extended-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (ef-IMRT). We evaluated the effect of these treatment choices on target coverage and thyroid and larynx doses. Using data from 14 patients with cancers of the oropharynx, we compared the following 3 strategies for radiating the low neck: (1) extended-field IMRT, (2) traditional split-field IMRT with an initial cord-junction block to 40 Gy, followed by a full-cord block to 50 Gy, and (3) split-field IMRT with a full-cord block to 50 Gy. Patients were planned using each of these 3 techniques. To facilitate comparison, extended-field plans were normalized to deliver 50 Gy to 95% of the neck volume. Target coverage was assessed using the dose to 95% of the neck volume (D{sub 95}). Mean thyroid and larynx doses were computed. Extended-field IMRT was used as the reference arm; the mean larynx dose was 25.7 ± 7.4 Gy, and the mean thyroid dose was 28.6 ± 2.4 Gy. Split-field IMRT with 2-step blocking reduced laryngeal dose (mean larynx dose 15.2 ± 5.1 Gy) at the cost of a moderate reduction in target coverage (D{sub 95} 41.4 ± 14 Gy) and much higher thyroid dose (mean thyroid dose 44.7 ± 3.7 Gy). Split-field IMRT with initial full-cord block resulted in greater laryngeal sparing (mean larynx dose 14.2 ± 5.1 Gy) and only a moderately higher thyroid dose (mean thyroid dose 31 ± 8 Gy) but resulted in a significant reduction in target coverage (D{sub 95} 34.4 ± 15 Gy). Extended-field IMRT comprehensively covers the low neck and achieves acceptable thyroid and laryngeal sparing. Split-field IMRT with a full-cord block reduces laryngeal doses to less than 20 Gy and spares the thyroid, at the cost of substantially reduced coverage of the low neck. Traditional 2-step split-field IMRT similarly reduces the laryngeal dose but also reduces low-neck coverage and delivers very high doses to the thyroid.},
doi = {10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2015.11.003},
journal = {Medical Dosimetry},
number = 2,
volume = 41,
place = {United States},
year = {Fri Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Fri Jul 01 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}
  • The purpose of the current study was to explore whether the laryngeal dose can be reduced by using 2 intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques: whole-neck field IMRT technique (WF-IMRT) vs. junctioned IMRT (J-IMRT). The effect on planning target volumes (PTVs) coverage and laryngeal sparing was evaluated. WF-IMRT technique consisted of a single IMRT plan, including the primary tumor and the superior and inferior neck to the level of the clavicular heads. The larynx was defined as an organ at risk extending superiorly to cover the arytenoid cartilages and inferiorly to include the cricoid cartilage. The J-IMRT technique consisted of anmore » IMRT plan for the primary tumor and the superior neck, matched to conventional antero-posterior opposing lower neck fields at the level of the thyroid notch. A central block was used for the anterior lower neck field at the level of the larynx to restrict the dose to the larynx. Ten oropharyngeal cancer cases were analyzed. Both the primary site and bilateral regional lymphatics were included in the radiotherapy targets. The averaged V95 for the PTV57.6 was 99.2% for the WF-IMRT technique compared with 97.4% (p = 0.02) for J-IMRT. The averaged V95 for the PTV64 was 99.9% for the WF-IMRT technique compared with 98.9% (p = 0.02) for J-IMRT and the averaged V95 for the PT70 was 100.0% for WF-IMRT technique compared with 99.5% (p = 0.04) for J-IMRT. The averaged mean laryngeal dose was 18 Gy with both techniques. The averaged mean doses within the matchline volumes were 69.3 Gy for WF-MRT and 66.2 Gy for J-IMRT (p = 0.03). The WF-IMRT technique appears to offer an optimal coverage of the target volumes and a mean dose to the larynx similar with J-IMRT and should be further evaluated in clinical trials.« less
  • Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography ({sup 18}F-FDG-PET)–guided focal dose escalation in oropharyngeal cancer may potentially improve local control. We evaluated the feasibility of this approach using volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) and compared these plans with fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) focal dose escalation plans. Materials and methods: An initial study of 20 patients compared RapidArc with fixed-field IMRT using standard dose prescriptions. From this cohort, 10 were included in a dose escalation planning study. Dose escalation was applied to {sup 18}F-FDG-PET–positive regions in the primary tumor at dose levels of 5% (DL1), 10% (DL2), and 15% (DL3) above standard radical dose (65 Gymore » in 30 fractions). Fixed-field IMRT and double-arc RapidArc plans were generated for each dataset. Dose-volume histograms were used for plan evaluation and comparison. The Paddick conformity index (CI{sub Paddick}) and monitor units (MU) for each plan were recorded and compared. Both IMRT and RapidArc produced clinically acceptable plans and achieved planning objectives for target volumes. Dose conformity was significantly better in the RapidArc plans, with lower CI{sub Paddick} scores in both primary (PTV1) and elective (PTV2) planning target volumes (largest difference in PTV1 at DL3; 0.81 ± 0.03 [RapidArc] vs. 0.77 ± 0.07 [IMRT], p = 0.04). Maximum dose constraints for spinal cord and brainstem were not exceeded in both RapidArc and IMRT plans, but mean doses were higher with RapidArc (by 2.7 ± 1 Gy for spinal cord and 1.9 ± 1 Gy for brainstem). Contralateral parotid mean dose was lower with RapidArc, which was statistically significant at DL1 (29.0 vs. 29.9 Gy, p = 0.01) and DL2 (29.3 vs. 30.3 Gy, p = 0.03). MU were reduced by 39.8–49.2% with RapidArc (largest difference at DL3, 641 ± 94 vs. 1261 ± 118, p < 0.01). {sup 18}F-FDG-PET–guided focal dose escalation in oropharyngeal cancer is feasible with RapidArc. Compared with conventional fixed-field IMRT, RapidArc can achieve better dose conformity, improve contralateral parotid sparing, and uses fewer MU.« less
  • Purpose: We hypothesized that patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) would have lower symptom burdens, as measured by patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys, than patients treated with intensity modulated photon therapy (IMRT). Methods and Materials: Patients were treated for oropharyngeal cancer from 2006 to 2015 through prospective registries with concurrent chemotherapy and IMPT or chemotherapy and IMRT and completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for Head and Neck Cancer (MDASI-HN) module at various times before treatment (baseline), during treatment (acute phase), within the first 3 months after treatment (subacute phase), and afterward (chronic phase). Individual symptoms andmore » the top 5 and top 11 most severe symptoms were summarized and compared between the radiation therapy modalities. Results: PRO data were collected and analyzed from 35 patients treated with chemotherapy and IMPT and from 46 treated with chemotherapy and IMRT. The baseline symptom burdens were similar between both groups. The overall top 5 symptoms were food taste problems (mean score 4.91 on a 0-10 scale), dry mouth (4.49), swallowing/chewing difficulties (4.26), lack of appetite (4.08), and fatigue (4.00). Among the top 11 symptoms, changes in taste and appetite during the subacute and chronic phases favored IMPT (all P<.048). No differences in symptom burden were detected between modalities during the acute and chronic phases by top-11 symptom scoring. During the subacute phase, the mean (±standard deviation) top 5 MDASI scores were 5.15 ± 2.66 for IMPT versus 6.58 ± 1.98 for IMRT (P=.013). Conclusions: According to the MDASI-HN, symptom burden was lower among the IMPT patients than among the IMRT patients during the subacute recovery phase after treatment. A prospective randomized clinical trial is underway to define the value of IMPT for the management of head and neck tumors.« less
  • A potential advantage of intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) over intensity-modulated (photon) radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC) is lower radiation dose to several critical structures involved in the development of nausea and vomiting, mucositis, and dysphagia. The purpose of this study was to quantify doses to critical structures for patients with OPC treated with IMPT and compare those with doses on IMRT plans generated for the same patients and with a matched cohort of patients actually treated with IMRT. In this study, 25 patients newly diagnosed with OPC were treated with IMPT between 2011 and 2012.more » Comparison IMRT plans were generated for these patients and for additional IMRT-treated controls extracted from a database of patients with OPC treated between 2000 and 2009. Cases were matched based on the following criteria, in order: unilateral vs bilateral therapy, tonsil vs base of tongue primary, T-category, N-category, concurrent chemotherapy, induction chemotherapy, smoking status, sex, and age. Results showed that the mean doses to the anterior and posterior oral cavity, hard palate, larynx, mandible, and esophagus were significantly lower with IMPT than with IMRT comparison plans generated for the same cohort, as were doses to several central nervous system structures involved in the nausea and vomiting response. Similar differences were found when comparing dose to organs at risks (OARs) between the IMPT cohort and the case-matched IMRT cohort. In conclusion, these findings suggest that patients with OPC treated with IMPT may experience fewer and less severe side effects during therapy. This may be the result of decreased beam path toxicities with IMPT due to lower doses to several dysphagia, odynophagia, and nausea and vomiting–associated OARs. Further study is needed to evaluate differences in long-term disease control and chronic toxicity between patients with OPC treated with IMPT in comparison to those treated with IMRT.« less
  • Purpose: To investigate the roles of volumetric modulated arc therapy with SmartArc (VMAT-S), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and helical tomotherapy (HT) for oropharyngeal cancer using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) approach. Methods and Materials: Eight patients treated with IMRT were selected at random. Plans were computed for both IMRT and VMAT-S (using Pinnacle TPS for an Elekta Infinity linac) along with HT. A three-dose level prescription was used to deliver 70 Gy, 63 Gy, and 58.1 Gy to regions of macroscopic, microscopic high-risk, and microscopic low-risk disease, respectively. All doses were given in 35 fractions. Comparisons were performed on dose-volumemore » histogram data, monitor units per fraction (MU/fx), and delivery time. Results: VMAT-S target coverage was close to that achieved by IMRT, but inferior to HT. The conformity and homogeneity within the PTV were improved for HT over all strategies. Sparing of the organs at risk (OAR) was achieved with all modalities. VMAT-S (along with HT) shortened delivery time (mean, -38%) and reduced MU/fx (mean, -28%) compared with IMRT. Conclusion: VMAT-S represents an attractive solution because of the shorter delivery time and the lower number of MU/fx compared with IMRT. However, in this complex clinical setting, current VMAT-S does not appear to provide any distinct advantage compared with helical tomotherapy.« less