Segmental IMRT for oropharyngeal cancer in a clinical setting

A planning study to optimise a simultaneously integrated boost treatment of larynx cancer with seven intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) beams

Background

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is one of the most reported techniques for head and neck cancer treatment, as it allows a good coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) while sparing the surrounding organs at risk (OAR) better than conventional conformal radiotherapy. The objective of this work is to optimise an IMRT technique for the simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) treatment of larynx cancer delivering a total dose of 69·96 Gy to the boost volume and 54·45 Gy to the elective volume in 33 fractions.

Methods

Three IMRT techniques, each using seven equally spaced beams, were planned for a sample of 10 patients. The first two techniques (IMRT-0 and IMRT-26) differ only for the starting angle of the seven beams, whereas the third (IMRT-CT) combines both these techniques by delivering IMRT-0 in the first half of treatment, and IMRT-26 in the second half, thus taking advantage of using 14 beams in total while using seven at a time only. The planning results were compared according to the dose coverage, homogeneity and conformity of the two PTVs, as well as to the dose to OARs, that is, spinal cord, parotids, mandible, brainstem and healthy tissue (defined as the body volume minus the sum of PTVs).

Results

Basically the PTV coverage resulted acceptable and comparable with all the three techniques. Concerning OARs, statistically better results are obtained in IMRT-CT when compared with IMRT-26 and IMRT-0.

Conclusion

The IMRT-CT technique, combining two different seven-beam setups, delivered in two treatment phases, improves dose distribution without increasing delivery time.

Salivary gland-sparing helical tomotherapy for head and neck cancer: Preserved salivary function on quantitative salivary gland scintigraphy after tomotherapy

GOALS

Prospective evaluation of salivary gland preservation, overall survival and local recurrence-free survival after head and neck cancer treated by helical tomotherapy (HT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From March 2007 to February 2009, 30 patients with head and neck cancer were treated by HT. The salivary excretion fraction (SEF) was assessed by technetium salivary gland scintigraphy before, and 6, 12 and 18 months after HT to define salivary gland preservation rates. Patients were reviewed every 3 months to assess clinical toxicity.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 4.3 years. The mean dose to the ipsilateral parotid gland (IPG) was 25.4Gy. Good preservation of parotid gland function was observed in 84% of the 19 patients evaluated by scintigraphy at 18 months. The 5-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) was 100% among the 6 patients who received a dose of more than 26Gy to the parotid gland. The 28-month LRFS was 33% in the group that received a dose of less than 20Gy versus 91% in the group that received a dose of more than 20Gy to the IPG.

CONCLUSIONS

Helical tomotherapy reduced the incidence and severity of xerostomia. A mean dose to the parotid between 20 and 26Gy allowed preservation of salivary function without compromising treatment efficacy. However, parotid-sparing HT requiring a mean dose less than 20Gy is associated with an increased risk of recurrence.

To evaluate the accuracy of dynamic versus static IMRT delivery using portal dosimetry

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the delivery accuracy of dynamic (DMLC) and static (SMLC) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) techniques using portal dosimetry (PD) in Varian Eclipse Treatment Planning System.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven DMLC IMRT Head and Neck plans were retrospectively generated for the study using SMLC mode at 20, 10 and 5 levels of intensity (SMLC20, SMLC10, SMLC5). Dosimetric verifications performed by PD on a total of 107 fields were evaluated using the gamma index (maximum (γmax), average (γavg), percentage of points with (γ%) ≤ 1). The images were acquired at a source-detector distance of 100 cm at gantry zero degree and also at clinically planned gantry angles.

RESULTS

For both modes, measurements are within acceptable criteria. (γ%) ≤ 1 improves by increasing SMLC levels (+3.4 % from SMLC5 to SMLC20, p < 0.001) and using DMLC (+3.9 % and +0.6 % compared to SMLC5 and SMLC20, respectively, p < 0.001). Also (γmax) parameter improves significantly by increasing SMLC levels (+22 % from SMLC5 to SMLC20) and using DMLC (+34 % and +16 % compared to SMLC5 and SMLC20, respectively). The effect of the gantry rotation influences the delivery accuracy by up to -7 % (p < 0.05). The effect of leaves travelling direction was almost negligible (1 %).

CONCLUSIONS

A good agreement between calculated and measured fluences was obtained for DMLC and SMLC techniques at higher intensity levels; however, DMLC delivery ensures the best reproduction of computed fluence maps. The gantry rotation influences the delivery accuracy in particular for SMLC modes at lower intensity levels.

Introducing multiple treatment plan-based comparison to investigate the performance of gantry angle optimisation (GAO) in IMRT for head and neck cancer

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of gantry angle optimisation (GAO) compared to equidistant beam geometry for two inverse treatment planning systems (TPSs) by utilising the information obtained from a range of treatment plans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The comparison was based on treatment plans generated for four different head and neck (H&N) cancer cases using two inverse treatment planning systems (TPSs); Varian Eclipse™ representing dynamic MLC intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and Oncentra® Masterplan representing segmented MLC-based IMRT. The patient cases were selected on the criterion of representing different degrees of overlap between the planning target volume (PTV) and the investigated organ at risk, the ipsilateral parotid gland. For each case, a number of 'Pareto optimal' plans were generated in order to investigate the trade-off between the under-dosage to the PTV (V(PTV,D < 95%)) or the decrease in dose homogeneity (D(5)-D(95)) to the PTV as a function of the mean absorbed dose to the ipsilateral parotid gland (<D>(parotid gland)).

RESULTS

For the Eclipse system, GAO had a clear advantage for the cases with smallest overlap (Cases 1 and 2). The set of data points, representing the underlying trade-offs, generated with and without using GAO were, however, not as clearly separated for the cases with larger overlap (Cases 3 and 4). With the OMP system, the difference was less pronounced for all cases. The Eclipse GAO displays the most favourable trade-off for all H&N cases.

CONCLUSIONS

We have found differences in the effectiveness of GAO as compared to equidistant beam geometry, in terms of handling conflicting trade-offs for two commercial inverse TPSs. A comparison, based on a range of treatment plans, as developed in this study, is likely to improve the understanding of conflicting trade-offs and might apply to other thorough comparison techniques.

Technical and dosimetric considerations in multi-isocenter intensity modulated radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma with small multileaf collimator

Multileaf collimator (MLC)-assisted intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has greatly improved the target coverage and avoidance of organs at risk (OAR) for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma; however, its implementation is also constrained by the features of the MLC. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma tends to have a large gross target volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) due to its biological characteristics. More than one isocenter may be needed when small MLCs (i.e., BrainLAB M3, whose largest field is 10 x 10 cm(2)) are used to treat the nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The BrainLAB IMRT system was used to evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-isocenter IMRT plan for treating nasopharyngeal cancers. Dose coverage of GTVs and CTVs were compared among IMRT plans with 1, 2 and 3 isocenters, as were dose objectives for OARs including brainstem, cord, and parotids. The dosimetric variation and the delivery time were also measured with a phantom. IMRT plans with more than 1 isocenter achieved a better dose coverage, homogeneity, and conformity on GTVs and CTVs; however, with risk of higher doses given to OARs. In most cases, one can generate satisfactory IMRT plans using the 2-isocenter IMRT planning strategy. Two-isocenter planning strategy may be a suitable compromise when more isocenters are needed.

Dosimetric comparisons of helical tomotherapy and step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma

PURPOSE

The study evaluates and quantifies the potential dosimetric gains of helical tomotherapy (HT) versus step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SaS-IMRT) for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty consecutive NPC patients curatively treated by HT were examined. Each case was planned by HT and SaS-IMRT (ADAC Pinnacle(3)) planning system, respectively. Dose plans were compared using dose volume histograms (DVH), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and minimal dose to 1cc (D(min_1cc)) of the planned target volume (PTV) and a comprehensive quality index (CQI) of ten organs at risk (OARs). The prescribed dose/fractionation was 72Gy to the PTV, 64.8Gy to the elective PTV, and 54Gy to the clinically negative neck region. The plan of 54Gy to the PTV (PTV(54)) was used to evaluate the CI and HI in the target. The cumulative doses of the three PTV plans to the OARs were calculated.

RESULTS

We observed the HT plans significantly improved the CI (improvement ratio: 11.9+/-5.5%) and HI (improvement ratio: 8.8+/-1.5%) of the PTV(54) compared with SaS-IMRT plans. In addition, the mean/maximal dose of most of the OARs except chiasm was significantly reduced in HT plans, with the CQI of 0.92+/-0.08. A negative result of HT in chiasm was observed but only significantly revealed in cases without skull base infiltration.

CONCLUSIONS

A dosimetric gain in CI and HI of PTV and sparing of OARs was significantly obtained in HT versus SaS-IMRT plans in NPC patients. Whether such dosimetric superiority in HT could transfer into clinical advantages needs further investigation.

Comparing 3DCRT and inversely optimized IMRT planning for head and neck cancer: equivalence between step-and-shoot and sliding window techniques

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To investigate the feasibility and the advantages of using Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) for the treatment of head-and-neck cancer. Comparing different methods to deliver IMRT in this clinical setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven patients (four radical; three post-operative), treated on a 6MV Varian Linac (equipped with an 80 leaves MLC) in accordance with a routine 3DCRT plan, were replanned. Original treatment plans were computed to irradiate a primary Planning Target Volume (PTV1, 54 Gy) and then to perform a boost on a PTV2 (radical: 70.2 Gy; post-operative: 64.8 Gy). IMRT dose plans were inversely-optimized using appropriate constraints with the Helios tool on a Varian Eclipse system. Once the optimal fluences were calculated, different modalities to deliver IMRT were considered: Sliding Window (SW) and Step and Shoot (SS) techniques using a different number of intensity levels to approximate the optimal fluences (e.g. 5, 10 and 20). Mean dose, maximum dose and a number of dose-volume parameters regarding CTV1, CTV2, PTV1, PTV2, OARs (spinal and planning spinal cord, parotids, optical structures, brain and temporal mandibular joint) were considered to compare the five modalities (3DCRT, SW, SS5, SS10, SS20); the Conformity Index (CI), the Irradiated Volume (IV) and the Treated Volume (TV) were also considered in the comparison.

RESULTS

A more uniform coverage of the PTV in the IMRT dose plans with respect to the 3DCRT plan was found (for PTV2: V90% = 94.3 for 3DCRT, 97.6 for SS5, 98 for SS10 and 98.1 for SW; V107% = 20.7 for 3DCRT, 5.9 for SS5, 2 for SS10 and 1.3 for SW). Concerning OARs, they all present a significant reduction of mean and/or maximum dose and dose-volume patterns assessed from DVHs: in particular the mean dose of parotids decrease on average of about 13.5Gy passing from 3DCRT to IMRT with an average reduction of NTCP ranging from about 20% to more than 40% for radically treated patients, depending on the chosen end-point. IV and TV are also slightly smaller with IMRT. The results obtained with SS techniques employing 10 or more intensity levels are comparable with those obtained with SW; no differences between SS10 and SW may be appreciated when considering the DVHs of PTV, CTV and OARs. On the other hand, in some cases SS5 may be slightly sub-effective with respect to SS10-SW when considering PTV coverage and Dmax of the spinal cord.

CONCLUSIONS

With the Varian planning and delivery system, Step-and-shoot approximations of inversely optimised fluences in head-neck IMRT compare well with SW delivery, even with only five intensity levels. With a number of intensity level of 10 or more, no differences can be appreciated in PTV coverage/OAR sparing with respect to SW.

Comparing step-and-shoot IMRT with dynamic helical tomotherapy IMRT plans for head-and-neck cancer

PURPOSE

The goal of this planning study was to compare step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans with helical dynamic IMRT plans for oropharynx patients on the basis of dose distribution.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Five patients with oropharynx cancer had been previously treated by step-and-shoot IMRT at the University Medical Centre Utrecht, The Netherlands, applying five fields and approximately 60-90 segments. Inverse planning was carried out using Plato, version 2.6.2. For each patient, an inverse IMRT plan was also made using Tomotherapy Hi-Art System, version 2.0, and using the same targets and optimization goals. Statistical analysis was performed by a paired t test.

RESULTS

All tomotherapy plans compared favorably with the step-and-shoot plans regarding sparing of the organs at risk and keeping an equivalent target dose homogeneity. Tomotherapy plans in particular realized sharper dose gradients compared with the step-and-shoot plans. The mean dose to all parotid glands (n = 10) decreased on average 6.5 Gy (range, -4 to 14; p = 0.002). The theoretical reduction in normal tissue complication probabilities in favor of the tomotherapy plans depended on the parotid normal tissue complication probability model used (range, -3% to 32%).

CONCLUSION

Helical tomotherapy IMRT plans realized sharper dose gradients compared with the clinically applied step-and shoot plans. They are expected to be able to reduce the parotid normal tissue complication probability further, keeping a similar target dose homogeneity.

The use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the treatment of oropharyngeal carcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The management of oropharyngeal cancers continues to evolve. Due to the functional consequences of surgery, organ preservation strategies with radiation combined with chemotherapy have been developed. Newer strategies to diminish the acute and late toxicities and improve the functional outcome of organ preservation strategies are being developed. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy is a relatively new, advanced form of radiation therapy that is being studied in an effort to improve local control rates and minimize the late effects of treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several recent studies have further supported the role for radiation therapy and chemotherapy as part of organ preservation strategies for cancers of the oropharynx. With the intensification of treatment, however, toxicities and functional impairment occur and have not been well documented in the past. Several recent studies report on the toxicities of traditional treatment methods. In addition, data show that intensity-modulated radiation therapy may be superior in terms of limiting toxicity compared with standard radiation therapy techniques. The integration of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with chemotherapeutic and radioprotective agents to further improve the therapeutic window for radiation therapy is being actively pursued.

SUMMARY

This paper reviews recent advances in radiotherapy for oropharynx cancer and the use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the management of head and neck cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) represents a potentially significant new advance in the radiotherapeutic treatment of head and neck cancer patients. The capacity of IMRT to produce highly conformal dose distributions affords the opportunity to decrease the spectrum of toxicities associated with head and neck radiation. This review updates recent advances regarding the use of this emerging technology.

RECENT FINDINGS

Mature clinical data demonstrating head and neck IMRT safety and efficacy remain relatively limited to date. Recent publications have sought to clarify target selection and delineation. Refinements in target design driven by clinical outcomes are beginning to emerge. Technical aspects of IMRT delivery such as the impact of daily set-up variation, planning methods, and optimal fractionation regimens are progressing.

SUMMARY

Stepwise refinement in the practice of IMRT for head and neck cancer patients is advancing worldwide. However, mature clinical data remains relatively limited and specific aspects regarding the practice of head and neck IMRT remain heterogeneous.