View in EDS

Adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer—Dosimetric results from a prospective clinical trial

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck cancer—Dosimetric results from a prospective clinical trial
Authors: Schwartz, David L.1,2,3 Dschwartz3@nshs.edu, Garden, Adam S.3, Shah, Shalin J.3, Chronowski, Gregory3, Sejpal, Samir3, Rosenthal, David I.3, Chen, Yipei4, Zhang, Yongbin4, Zhang, Lifei4, Wong, Pei-Fong3, Garcia, John A.3, Kian Ang, K.3, Dong, Lei4,5
Source: Radiotherapy & Oncology. Jan2013, Vol. 106 Issue 1, p80-84. 5p.
Subjects: Head & neck cancer treatment, Cancer radiotherapy, Medical dosimetry, Clinical trials, Oropharyngeal cancer, Image registration, Comparative studies
Abstract: Abstract: Purpose: To conduct a clinical trial evaluating adaptive head and neck radiotherapy (ART). Methods: Patients with locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer were prospectively enrolled. Daily CT-guided setup and deformable image registration permitted mapping of dose to avoidance structures and CTVs. We compared four planning scenarios: (1) original IMRT plan aligned daily to marked isocenter (BB); (2) original plan aligned daily to bone (IGRT); (3) IGRT with one adaptive replan (ART1); and (4) actual treatment received by each study patient (IGRT with one or two adaptive replans, ART2). Results: All 22 study patients underwent one replan (ART1); eight patients had two replans (ART2). ART1 reduced mean dose to contralateral parotid by 0.6Gy or 2.8% (paired t-test; p =0.003) and ipsilateral parotid by 1.3Gy (3.9%) (p =0.002) over the IGRT alone. ART2 further reduced the mean contralateral parotid dose by 0.8Gy or 3.8% (p =0.026) and ipsilateral parotid by 4.1Gy or 9% (p =0.001). ART significantly reduced integral body dose. Conclusions: This pilot trial suggests that head and neck ART dosimetrically outperforms IMRT. IGRT that leverages conventional PTV margins does not improve dosimetry. One properly timed replan delivers the majority of achievable dosimetric improvement. The clinical impact of ART must be confirmed by future trials. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]
Copyright of Radiotherapy & Oncology is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:Abstract: Purpose: To conduct a clinical trial evaluating adaptive head and neck radiotherapy (ART). Methods: Patients with locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer were prospectively enrolled. Daily CT-guided setup and deformable image registration permitted mapping of dose to avoidance structures and CTVs. We compared four planning scenarios: (1) original IMRT plan aligned daily to marked isocenter (BB); (2) original plan aligned daily to bone (IGRT); (3) IGRT with one adaptive replan (ART1); and (4) actual treatment received by each study patient (IGRT with one or two adaptive replans, ART2). Results: All 22 study patients underwent one replan (ART1); eight patients had two replans (ART2). ART1 reduced mean dose to contralateral parotid by 0.6Gy or 2.8% (paired t-test; p =0.003) and ipsilateral parotid by 1.3Gy (3.9%) (p =0.002) over the IGRT alone. ART2 further reduced the mean contralateral parotid dose by 0.8Gy or 3.8% (p =0.026) and ipsilateral parotid by 4.1Gy or 9% (p =0.001). ART significantly reduced integral body dose. Conclusions: This pilot trial suggests that head and neck ART dosimetrically outperforms IMRT. IGRT that leverages conventional PTV margins does not improve dosimetry. One properly timed replan delivers the majority of achievable dosimetric improvement. The clinical impact of ART must be confirmed by future trials. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]
ISSN:01678140
DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2012.10.010