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: Comparison of two different IMRT planning techniques in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Effect on parotid gland radiation doses.
    Author: Uzel EK, Karaçam S, Eliçin O, Uzel O.
    Journal: Strahlenther Onkol; 2013 Jul; 189(7):552-8. PubMed ID: 23748231.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare the effect of two different intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) planning techniques on parotid gland doses in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Radiotherapy for 10 NPC patients referred to the University of Istanbul Cerrahpasa Medical School was planned with arc- and static seven-field IMRT. The simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique was used to deliver 70 Gy (2.12 Gy per fraction) to the primary tumor and involved nodes; 60 Gy (1.81 Gy per fraction) to the entire nasopharynx and 54 Gy (1.63 Gy per fraction) to elective lymph nodes in 33 fractions. Plans also aimed to keep the mean parotid dose below 26 Gy and limit the maximum doses to the spinal cord and brain stem to 45 and 54 Gy, respectively. Mean parotid gland doses for the two planning techniques were compared using a paired t-test. Target coverage and dose inhomogeneity were evaluated by calculating conformity- (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) values. RESULTS: Target coverage and dose homogeneity were identical and good for both planning techniques: CI = 1.05 ± 0.08 and 1.05 ± 0.08; HI = 1.08 ± 0.02 and 1.07 ± 0.01 for arc- and static field IMRT, respectively. Mean doses to contralateral parotid glands were 25.73 ± 4.27 and 27.73 ± 3.5 Gy(p = 0.008) for arc- and static field IMRT plans, respectively, whereas mean ipsilateral parotid doses were 30.65 ± 6.25 and 32.55 ± 5.93 Gy (non-significant p-value), respectively. Mean monitor units (MU) per fraction for the 10 patients were considerably lower for arc- than for static field treatments-540.5 ± 130.39 versus 1288.4 ± 197.28 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Normal tissues--particularly the parotid glands--are better spared with the arc technique in patients with NPC. MU and treatment times are considerably reduced in arc IMRT plans.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]