These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A treatment planning analysis of inverse-planned and forward-planned intensity-modulated radiation therapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
    Author: Poon I, Xia P, Weinberg V, Sultanem K, Akazawa C, Akazawa P, Verhey L, Quivey JM, Lee N.
    Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2007 Dec 01; 69(5):1625-33. PubMed ID: 18035216.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare dose-volume histograms of target volumes and organs at risk in 57 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) with inverse- (IP) or forward-planned (FP) intensity-modulated radiation treatment (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The DVHs of 57 patients with NPC with IMRT with or without chemotherapy were reviewed. Thirty-one patients underwent IP IMRT, and 26 patients underwent FP IMRT. Treatment goals were to prescribe a minimum dose of 66-70 Gy for gross tumor volume and 59.4 Gy for planning target volume to greater than 95% of the volume. Multiple selected end points were used to compare dose-volume histograms of the targets, including minimum, mean, and maximum doses; percentage of target volume receiving less than 90% (1-V90%), less than 95% (1-V95%), and greater than 105% (1-V105%). Dose-volume histograms of organs at risk were evaluated with characteristic end points. RESULTS: Both planning methods provided excellent target coverage with no statistically significant differences found, although a trend was suggested in favor of improved target coverage with IP IMRT in patients with T3/T4 NPC (p = 0.10). Overall, IP IMRT statistically decreased the dose to the parotid gland, temporomandibular joint, brain stem, and spinal cord overall, whereas IP led to a dose decrease to the middle/inner ear in only the T1/T2 subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Use of IP and FP IMRT can lead to good target coverage while maintaining critical structures within tolerance. The IP IMRT selectively spared these critical organs to a greater degree and should be considered the standard of treatment in patients with NPC, particularly those with T3/T4. The FP IMRT is an effective second option in centers with limited IP IMRT capacity. As a modification of conformal techniques, the human/departmental resources to incorporate FP-IMRT should be nominal.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]