We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This study compared the pattern of radiation induced parotid changes between conventional (ConRT) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients.
Methods
56 adult NPC patients treated with IMRT (n=28) and conventional radiotherapy (n=28) were recruited. CT scans were acquired before radiotherapy, at 10th, 20th and 30th fractions, and 3 months after treatment. Parotid gland was delineated in the corresponding CT slices and its mean dose was calculated. The volumetric and geometric changes of the parotid gland at various time intervals were compared against the pre-treatment structure set. The pattern of changes was compared between the two techniques.
Results
The mean parotid dose of IMRT (37.5±9.5 Gy) was significantly lower than ConRT (49.1±7.4 Gy). The parotid gland volume, DICE similarity coefficient and lateral dimension of patient head gradually decreased during the radiotherapy course and partially recovered in 3 months post-treatment. The differences between two groups were not significant until at 3 month after treatment, where IMRT showed significantly better volume recovery.
Conclusion
Similar parotid gland size and location changes were observed during the treatment course in both ConRT and IMRT. However IMRT demonstrated better parotid volume recovery after treatment.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.