1
|
Lee AW, Ng WT, Pan JJ, Chiang CL, Poh SS, Choi HC, Ahn YC, AlHussain H, Corry J, Grau C, Grégoire V, Harrington KJ, Hu CS, Kwong DL, Langendijk JA, Le QT, Lee NY, Lin JC, Lu TX, Mendenhall WM, O'Sullivan B, Ozyar E, Peters LJ, Rosenthal DI, Sanguineti G, Soong YL, Tao Y, Yom SS, Wee JT. International Guideline on Dose Prioritization and Acceptance Criteria in Radiation Therapy Planning for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2019; 105:567-580. [PMID: 31276776 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.2540] [Citation(s) in RCA: 95] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2018] [Revised: 06/12/2019] [Accepted: 06/25/2019] [Indexed: 12/09/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma requires high radiation doses. The balance of the risks of local recurrence owing to inadequate tumor coverage versus the potential damage to the adjacent organs at risk (OARs) is of critical importance. With advancements in technology, high target conformality is possible. Nonetheless, to achieve the best possible dose distribution, optimal setting of dose targets and dose prioritization for tumor volumes and various OARs is fundamental. Radiation doses should always be guided by the As Low As Reasonably Practicable principle. There are marked variations in practice. This study aimed to develop a guideline to serve as a global practical reference. METHODS AND MATERIALS A literature search on dose tolerances and normal-tissue complications after treatment for nasopharyngeal carcinoma was conducted. In addition, published guidelines and protocols on dose prioritization and constraints were reviewed. A text document and preliminary set of variants was circulated to a panel of international experts with publications or extensive experience in the field. An anonymized voting process was conducted to rank the proposed variants. A summary of the initial voting and different opinions expressed by members were then recirculated to the whole panel for review and reconsideration. Based on the comments of the panel, a refined second proposal was recirculated to the same panel. The current guideline was based on majority voting after repeated iteration for final agreement. RESULTS Variation in opinion among international experts was repeatedly iterated to develop a guideline describing appropriate dose prioritization and constraints. The percentage of final agreement on the recommended parameters and alternative views is shown. The rationale for the recommendations and the limitations of current evidence are discussed. CONCLUSIONS Through this comprehensive review of available evidence and interactive exchange of vast experience by international experts, a guideline was developed to provide a practical reference for setting dose prioritization and acceptance criteria for tumor volumes and OARs. The final decision on the treatment prescription should be based on the individual clinical situation and the patient's acceptance of optimal balance of risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne W Lee
- Department of Clinical Oncology, University of Hong Kong Shenzhen Hospital and University of Hong Kong, China
| | - Wai Tong Ng
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong
| | - Jian Ji Pan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Cancer Hospital & Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, China
| | - Chi-Leung Chiang
- Department of Clinical Oncology, University of Hong Kong Shenzhen Hospital and University of Hong Kong, China
| | - Sharon S Poh
- Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Oncology ACP, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore
| | - Horace C Choi
- Department of Clinical Oncology, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
| | - Yong Chan Ahn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hussain AlHussain
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | - June Corry
- Radiation Oncology, GenesisCare, St. Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Cai Grau
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Vincent Grégoire
- Center for Molecular Imaging, Oncology and Radiotherapy, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium and Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | - Kevin J Harrington
- The Royal Marsden/The Institute of Cancer Research National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK
| | - Chao Su Hu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Dora L Kwong
- Department of Clinical Oncology, University of Hong Kong and Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong
| | - Johannes A Langendijk
- Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | - Quynh Thu Le
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, NRG Oncology and Head and Neck Cancer International Group, California
| | - Nancy Y Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York
| | - Jin Ching Lin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Tai Xiang Lu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Center of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - William M Mendenhall
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida
| | - Brian O'Sullivan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | - Enis Ozyar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Acibadem University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Lester J Peters
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - David I Rosenthal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Giuseppe Sanguineti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Yoke Lim Soong
- Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Oncology ACP, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore
| | - Yungan Tao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Paris-Saclay University, Villejuif, France
| | - Sue S Yom
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Joseph T Wee
- Division of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Oncology ACP, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Jiang H, Lu H, Yuan H, Huang H, Wei Y, Zhang Y, Liu X. Dosimetric benefits of placing dose constraints on the brachial plexus in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma receiving intensity-modulated radiation therapy: a comparative study. JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH 2015; 56:114-121. [PMID: 25173085 PMCID: PMC4572593 DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rru072] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2014] [Revised: 07/21/2014] [Accepted: 07/28/2014] [Indexed: 06/03/2023]
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate whether placing dose constraints on the brachial plexus (BP) could provide dosimetric benefits in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) undergoing intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Planning CT images for 30 patients with NPC treated with definitive IMRT were retrospectively reviewed. Target volumes, the BP and other critical structures were delineated; two separate IMRT plans were designed for each patient: one set no restrictions for the BP; the other considered the BP as a critical structure for which a maximum dose limit of ≤66 Gy was set. No significant differences between the two plans were observed in the conformity index, homogeneity index, maximum dose to the planning target volumes (PTVs), minimum dose to the PTVs, percentages of the volume of the PTVnx and PTVnd receiving more than 110% of the prescribed dose, or percentages of the volume of the PTVs receiving 95% and > 93% of the prescribed dose. Dose constraints significantly reduced the maximum dose, mean dose, V45, V50, V54, V60, V66 and V70 to the BP. Dose constraints significantly reduced the maximum dose to the BP, V45, V60 and V66 in both N0-1 and N2-3 disease; however, the magnitude of the dosimetric gain for each parameter between N0-1 and N2-3 disease was not significantly different, except for the V60 and V66. In conclusion, placing dose constraints on the BP can significantly decrease the irradiated volume and dose, without compromising adequate dose delivery to the target volume.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hailan Jiang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, 6 Taoyuan Road, Nanning City, 530021, Guangxi, P. R. China
| | - Heming Lu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, 6 Taoyuan Road, Nanning City, 530021, Guangxi, P. R. China
| | - Hong Yuan
- Department of Otorhinolaryngology, People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, 6 Taoyuan Road, Nanning City, 530021, Guangxi, P. R. China
| | - Huixian Huang
- Department of Oncology, Liuzhou Worker's Hospital, Liuzhou 545005, P. R. China
| | - Yinglin Wei
- Department of Radiation Oncology, People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, 6 Taoyuan Road, Nanning City, 530021, Guangxi, P. R. China
| | - Yanxian Zhang
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning 530021, P. R. China
| | - Xu Liu
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning 530021, P. R. China
| |
Collapse
|