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

Title: SU-F-J-13: Choosing An IMRT Technique in the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer with Daily Localization Uncertainties

Abstract

Purpose: Head and Neck cancer treatment with IMRT/VMAT has two choices: split-filed IMRT(SFI), in which the LAN is treated with a separate anterior field and the extended whole-field IMRT(WFI) in which LAN is included with the IMRT/VMAT field. This study shows that under the same dose limit criteria, choosing the technique becomes a critical issue if daily localization and immobilization altered the dose distribution. Methods: Nine common head-and-neck cancer cases were chosen to illustrate how the daily localization and immobilization uncertainties affect to choose between SFI and WFI. Both SFI and WFI at upper target coverage were generated with VMAT. For each case, the same planning criteria were applied to the target and critical structures; therefore, similar target coverage and dose falloff can be observed in both techniques. Thirty days of kV cone beam CT(CBCT) images on each case were also delineated with contralateral and ipsilateral target as well as larynx as critical structure. About 300 CBCT images with daily delivered doses were analyzed and compared in a form of dose-volume histograms. Results: While both plans for SFI and WFI with VMAT planning utilized and meet the criteria of D95>prescription dose and for not-involved larynx with mean dose <35Gy andmore » V55<10%, the daily localization and immobilization has a great contribution to the resulted dose delivery. With WFI, the better daily contralateral and ipsilateral neck target coverage can reflect a simpler or shorter localization; however, a much superior avoidance (WFI: mean dose a 42.5Gy; SFI: mean dose a 18.9Gy) of the non-involved larynx from the SFI is preferred. Conclusion: Dosimetrically, SFI and WFI are equally well for head and Neck cancer treatment with VMAT technique; however, if considering the contribution of daily localization(CBCT) method uncertainties, SFI is better with sparing non-involved larynx and WFI has better target coverage.« less

Authors:
; ; ;  [1]
  1. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22632149
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 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; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; AVOIDANCE; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; DOSE LIMITS; HEAD; LARYNX; NECK; NEOPLASMS; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Lin, T, Wang, L, Galloway, T, and Ma, C. SU-F-J-13: Choosing An IMRT Technique in the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer with Daily Localization Uncertainties. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4955921.
Lin, T, Wang, L, Galloway, T, & Ma, C. SU-F-J-13: Choosing An IMRT Technique in the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer with Daily Localization Uncertainties. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955921.
Lin, T, Wang, L, Galloway, T, and Ma, C. Wed . "SU-F-J-13: Choosing An IMRT Technique in the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer with Daily Localization Uncertainties". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955921.
@article{osti_22632149,
title = {SU-F-J-13: Choosing An IMRT Technique in the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer with Daily Localization Uncertainties},
author = {Lin, T and Wang, L and Galloway, T and Ma, C},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Head and Neck cancer treatment with IMRT/VMAT has two choices: split-filed IMRT(SFI), in which the LAN is treated with a separate anterior field and the extended whole-field IMRT(WFI) in which LAN is included with the IMRT/VMAT field. This study shows that under the same dose limit criteria, choosing the technique becomes a critical issue if daily localization and immobilization altered the dose distribution. Methods: Nine common head-and-neck cancer cases were chosen to illustrate how the daily localization and immobilization uncertainties affect to choose between SFI and WFI. Both SFI and WFI at upper target coverage were generated with VMAT. For each case, the same planning criteria were applied to the target and critical structures; therefore, similar target coverage and dose falloff can be observed in both techniques. Thirty days of kV cone beam CT(CBCT) images on each case were also delineated with contralateral and ipsilateral target as well as larynx as critical structure. About 300 CBCT images with daily delivered doses were analyzed and compared in a form of dose-volume histograms. Results: While both plans for SFI and WFI with VMAT planning utilized and meet the criteria of D95>prescription dose and for not-involved larynx with mean dose <35Gy and V55<10%, the daily localization and immobilization has a great contribution to the resulted dose delivery. With WFI, the better daily contralateral and ipsilateral neck target coverage can reflect a simpler or shorter localization; however, a much superior avoidance (WFI: mean dose a 42.5Gy; SFI: mean dose a 18.9Gy) of the non-involved larynx from the SFI is preferred. Conclusion: Dosimetrically, SFI and WFI are equally well for head and Neck cancer treatment with VMAT technique; however, if considering the contribution of daily localization(CBCT) method uncertainties, SFI is better with sparing non-involved larynx and WFI has better target coverage.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4955921},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}