Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:11:21.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy using different techniques, simultaneous integrated boost and sequential boost for craniospinal irradiation: a single institution experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2017

Bongkot Jia-Mahasap ,
Imjai Chitapanarux ,
Ekkasit Tharavichitkul ,
Somvilai Chakrabandhu ,
Pitchayaponne Klunklin ,
Wimrak Onchan ,
Anirut Watcharawipha ,
Somsak Wanwilairat  and
Patrinee Traisathit
Bongkot Jia-Mahasap*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, The Division of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Faculty of Medicine CMU, Mueang, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Imjai Chitapanarux
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, The Division of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Faculty of Medicine CMU, Mueang, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Ekkasit Tharavichitkul
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, The Division of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Faculty of Medicine CMU, Mueang, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Somvilai Chakrabandhu
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, The Division of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Faculty of Medicine CMU, Mueang, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Pitchayaponne Klunklin
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, The Division of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Faculty of Medicine CMU, Mueang, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Wimrak Onchan
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, The Division of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Faculty of Medicine CMU, Mueang, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Anirut Watcharawipha
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, The Division of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Faculty of Medicine CMU, Mueang, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Somsak Wanwilairat
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, The Division of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Faculty of Medicine CMU, Mueang, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Patrinee Traisathit
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Faculty of Science, CMU, Mueang, Chiang Mai, Thailand
*
Correspondence to: Bongkot Jia-Mahasap, Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, CMU, 110 Intawaroros Road, SriPoom, Mueang, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Tel: 053-945456. Fax: 053-945491. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purpose

Craniospinal irradiation (CSI) has become an important and challenging radiation technique for radiation oncologists. Helical tomotherapy (HT) seems to have dosimetric advantage for CSI compared with other radiation modalities. The purpose of this study was to compare dosimetric data between two different HT plans; simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) and sequential boost (Sq).

Method

Twelve previously treated CSI contoured datasets by SIB technique were replanned. Dosimetric comparative parameters of targets were conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI). For organ at risk (OARs), the mean dose of parallel organs, D2% of serial organs and whole body integral dose (ID) were also investigated.

Result

SIB plan significantly provided more conformed dose to CSI and tumour boost while resulting in a similar CI in spinal boost region compared with Sq plan. The HI showed no differences between two plans. Radiation exposure to serial organs and ID were also significantly lower in SIB plan.

Conclusion

CSI treatment using HT, SIB technique was feasible and had more target coverage while minimising the radiation dose to healthy tissues.

Keywords

craniospinal irradiationdosimetric comparisonhelical tomotherapy
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 245 - 250
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Yom, S S, Frija, E K, Mahajan, A et al. Field-in-field technique with intrafractionally modulated junction shifts for craniospinal irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 69: 1193–1198.Google Scholar
2. South, M, Chiu, J K, Teh, B S, Bloch, C, Schroeder, T M, Paulino, A C. Supine craniospinal irradiation using intrafractional junction shifts and field-in-field dose shaping: early experience at Methodist Hospital. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 71 (2): 477–483.Google Scholar
3. Supawongwattana, B, Hoonghual, T, Chitapanarux, I, Wanwilairat, S, Traisathit, P. Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy (HT) with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), three dimension conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and conventional two-dimension radiotherapy (2D) for craniospinal axis irradiation (CSI). Chiang Mai Med J 2015; 54 (1): 17–28.Google Scholar
4. Oken, M M, Creech, R H, Tormey, D C et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 1982; 5 (6): 649–655.Google Scholar
5. Polkinghorn, W R, Tarbell, N J. Medulloblastoma: tumorigenesis, current clinical paradigm, and efforts to improve risk stratification. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2007; 4 (5): 295–304.Google Scholar
6. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Photon-Beam Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT). ICRU Report 83. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
7. Marks, L B, Yorke, E D, Jackson, A et al. Use of normal tissue complication probability models in the clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76 (suppl 3): S10–S19.Google Scholar
8. Parker, W, Brodeur, M, Roberge, D, Freeman, C. Standard and nonstandard craniospinal radiotherapy using helical TomoTherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 77 (3): 926–931.Google Scholar
9. Mascarin, M, Drigo, A, Dassie, A et al. Optimizing craniospinal radiotherapy delivery in a pediatric patient affected by supratentorial PNET: a case report. Tumori 2010; 96 (2): 316–321.Google Scholar
10. Bauman, G, Yartsev, S, Coad, T, Fisher, B, Kron, T. Helical tomotherapy for craniospinal radiation. Br J Radiol 2005; 78 (930): 548–552.Google Scholar
11. Zhang, X, Penagaricano, J, Han, E Y et al. Dosimetric comparison of craniospinal irradiation using different tomotherapy techniques. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2015; 14 (4): 440–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. D’Souza, W D, Rosen, II. Nontumor integral dose variation in conventional radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys 2003; 30 (8): 2065–2071.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Sharma, D S, Gupta, T, Jalali, R, Master, Z, Phurailatpam, R D, Sarin, R. High-precision radiotherapy for craniospinal irradiation: evaluation of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy and helical TomoTherapy. Br J Radiol 2009; 82 (984): 1000–1009.Google Scholar
14. Penagaricano, J A, Papanikolaou, N, Yan, Y, Youssef, E, Ratanatharathorn, V. Feasibility of cranio-spinal axis radiation with the Hi-Art tomotherapy system. Radiother Oncol 2005; 76 (1): 72–78.Google Scholar
15. Bandurska-Luque, A, Piotrowski, T, Skrobala, A, Ryczkowski, A, Adamska, K, Kazmierska, J. Prospective study on dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy and 3DCRT for craniospinal irradiation – a single institution experience. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2015; 20 (2): 145–152.Google Scholar
16. Dogan, N, King, S, Emami, B et al. Assessment of different IMRT boost delivery methods on target coverage and normal-tissue sparing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 57 (5): 1480–1491.Google Scholar
17. Chen, S W, Yang, S N, Liang, J A, Shiau, A C, Lin, F J. Comparative dosimetric study of two strategies of intensity-modulated radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal cancer. Med Dosim 2005; 30 (4): 219–227.Google Scholar
18. Aoyama, H, Westerly, D C, Mackie, T R et al. Integral radiation dose to normal structures with conformal external beam radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 64 (3): 962–967.Google Scholar
19. Penagaricano, J A, Yan, Y, Corry, P, Moros, E, Ratanatharathorn, V. Retrospective evaluation of pediatric cranio-spinal axis irradiation plans with the Hi-ART tomotherapy system. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2007; 6 (4): 355–360.Google Scholar
20. Verellen, D, Vanhavere, F. Risk assessment of radiation-induced malignancies based on whole-body equivalent dose estimates for IMRT treatment in the head and neck region. Radiother Oncol 1999; 53 (3): 199–203.Google Scholar
21. Followill, D, Geis, P, Boyer, A. Estimates of whole-body dose equivalent produced by beam intensity modulated conformal therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997; 38 (3): 667–672.Google Scholar
22. Hall, E J, Wuu, C S. Radiation-induced second cancers: the impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 56 (1): 83–88.Google Scholar
23. Stokkevag, CH, Engeseth, G M, Ytre-Hauge, K S et al. Estimated risk of radiation-induced cancer following paediatric cranio-spinal irradiation with electron, photon and proton therapy. Acta Oncol 2014; 53 (8): 1048–1057.Google Scholar