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: Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy, RapidArc, and a novel IMRT & Arc technique for esophageal carcinoma.
    Author: Martin S, Chen JZ, Rashid Dar A, Yartsev S.
    Journal: Radiother Oncol; 2011 Dec; 101(3):431-7. PubMed ID: 21962823.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare radiotherapy treatment plans for mid- and distal-esophageal cancer with primary involvement of the gastroesophageal (GE) junction using a novel IMRT & Arc technique (IMRT & Arc), helical tomotherapy (HT), and RapidArc (RA1 and RA2). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eight patients treated on HT for locally advanced esophageal cancer with radical intent were re-planned for RA and IMRT&Arc. RA plans employed single and double arcs (RA1 and RA2, respectively), while IMRT&Arc plans had four fixed-gantry IMRT fields and a conformal arc. Dose-volume histogram statistics, dose uniformity, and dose homogeneity were analyzed to compare treatment plans. RESULTS: RA2 plans showed significant improvement over RA1 plans in terms of OAR dose and PTV dose uniformity and homogeneity. HT plan provided best dose uniformity (p=0.001) and dose homogeneity (p=0.002) to planning target volume (PTV), while IMRT&Arc and RA2 plans gave lowest dose to lungs among four radiotherapy techniques with acceptable PTV dose coverage. Mean V(10) of the lungs was significantly reduced by the RA2 plans compared to IMRT&Arc (40.3%, p=0.001) and HT (66.2%, p<0.001) techniques. Mean V(15) of the lungs for the RA2 plans also showed significant improvement over the IMRT&Arc (25.2%, p=0.042) and HT (34.8%, p=0.027) techniques. These improvements came at the cost of higher doses to the heart volume compared to HT and IMRT&Arc techniques. Mean lung dose (MLD) for the IMRT&Arc technique (21.2 ± 5.0% of prescription dose) was significantly reduced compared to HT (26.3%, p=0.004), RA1 (23.3%, p=0.028), and RA2 (23.2%, p=0.017) techniques. CONCLUSION: The IMRT&Arc technique is a good option for treating esophageal cancer with thoracic involvement. It achieved optimal low dose to the lungs and heart with acceptable PTV coverage. HT is a good option for treating esophageal cancer with little thoracic involvement as it achieves superior dose conformality and uniformity. The RA2 technique provided for improved treatment plans using additional arcs with low doses to the lungs at the cost of increased heart dose. Plan quality could still be improved through the use of additional arcs.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]