Beam angle selection for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment of unresectable pancreatic cancer: are noncoplanar beam angles necessary?

Chang, David S.; Bartlett, G.; Das, Indra J.; Cárdenes, Higinia R.

doi:10.1007/s12094-012-0998-5

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This noncoplanar arrangement was based on prior optimization of beam angles and was chosen to mitigate kidney dose, spare skin, and minimize duodenal dose contribution from beam penumbra. 6,7 An example beam arrangement is shown in Fig. 1.…”

Section: C Treatment Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

A dosimetric comparison of proton and photon therapy in unresectable cancers of the head of pancreas

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: C Treatment Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

A dosimetric comparison of proton and photon therapy in unresectable cancers of the head of pancreas

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the stomach, duodenum and bowel, we applied an Į/ȕ value of 3.5 Gy; for the spinal cord, 2.0 Gy; for liver, 3.0 Gy; for the skin, 10.0 Gy [5] . BED=nd(1+d/(Į/ȕ) ) (1) After dividing the target, we need to count the total biological dose of the sensitive organs in PTV1 and PTV3 [6] : BED total = BED 1 + BED 3 (2) BED total refers to the total biological dose while BED 1 and BED 2 refer to the biological dose of sensitive organs in PTV1 and PTV3, respectively.…”

Section: The Calculation Of Biological Equivalent Dosementioning

confidence: 99%

“…These results show that the tumor coverage of divisional target plan is obviously better than a single target plan. 4.2 It's the dose of OARs which decides if the treatment plan could be implemented, thus the dose superposition of sensitive organs is one of the most important aspects we need to consider about when designing divisional target plans [6]. The dose threshold given in report TG101 is the dose standard of five times' fractioned irradiation.…”

Section: Liver Is a Soft Tissue Which Is Influenced By Respirationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compare the design of divisional target plan and single target plan for massive liver cancer

Li¹,

Xu²,

Zhang³

2013

2013 IEEE International Conference on Medical Imaging Physics and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To improve the coverage of irradiation on tumor and resolve the problem of dose shortage at the edge of tumor beside sensitive organs, we will discuss about designing divisional target plans for massive liver cancer. On the stage of designing treatment plans, we divide the Planning Target Volume (PTV) into three sub-targets: PTV1, PTV2 and PTV3. PTV1 and PTV3 are the regions for designing treatment plans, and PTV2 is the spacer region between PTV1 and PTV3. We select two cases of massive liver cancer, adopt the same prescribed dose and dose threshold of sensitive organs, and then design plans for a single target and divisional targets respectively. We will compare and evaluate the results of these two methods. For case 1, the tumor coverage rates of a single target plan and divisional target plan were 66.51% and 99.00%, respectively. For case 2, the tumor coverage rates of a single target plan and divisional target plan were 56.85% and 92%.Through divisional target plans, the tumor coverage of case 1 and 2 improves 32.49% and 35.15%, respectively. So the design of divisional target plan greatly improves the coverage rate of irradiation on tumor, but prolongs the time of treatment.

show abstract

“…They concluded that technique selection should be individualized, based on patient-specific clinical and dosimetric parameters. Chang et al [5] examined the utility of noncoplanar beam angles in IMRT for the management of 16 pancreatic cancer patients. The use of NCP beam angles was preferred only in patients with risk factors for treatment-related kidney dysfunction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Beams' Orientations on the Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Plan Quality

Attalla¹,

Eldesoky²

2017

J Nucl Med Radiat Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The work aims at studying forty Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans designed using KonRad system and evaluating each of them under different conditions to study the effect of beams' orientations on the plan quality.Methods: Clinical step-and-shoot IMRT treatment plans were designed for twenty patients, suffering from different types of non-CNS solid tumors, to be delivery on a Siemens Oncor accelerator with multi-leaf collimators MLCs (82 leaf). To ensure that the similarity or difference between the plans was due to effect of beams' orientations, the same optimization constraints were applied for each plan and all other parameters were kept constant.Results: The analysis of performance was based on isodose distributions, Dose Volume Histograms (DVHs) for Planning Target Volume (PTV), the relevant Organs at Risk (OARs) as well as several physical indices like mean dose (D mean ), maximum dose (D max ), 95% dose (D95), integral dose, volume of tumor receiving 2 Gy and 5 Gy, total number of segments and monitor units (MUs). Homogeneity index and conformation number were two other evaluation parameters that were considered in this study. Conclusion:All coplanar CP and non-coplanar NC techniques result in clinically acceptable plans, with comparable target doses and dose to critical organs within prescribed dose constraints. For different organs at risk, the coplanar IMRT, the greatest advantage of non-coplanar IMRT was the marked reduction of general trend was that non-coplanar plans achieved the lowest values, while coplanar plans showed the highest. Significant differences (P<0.05) exist only between the homogeneity index HI (1.092 and 1.088) and Monitor Unit MU (357.79 and 341.80) of CP and NC plans respectively. Compared with the integral dose (p=0.007).

show abstract

Beam angle selection for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment of unresectable pancreatic cancer: are noncoplanar beam angles necessary?

Abstract: The NCP IMRT was able to significantly decrease bilateral kidney dose, but did not improve other dose-volume criteria. The use of NCP beam angles is preferred only in patients with risk factors for treatment-related kidney dysfunction.

Cited by 12 publications

References 19 publications

A dosimetric comparison of proton and photon therapy in unresectable cancers of the head of pancreas

A dosimetric comparison of proton and photon therapy in unresectable cancers of the head of pancreas

Compare the design of divisional target plan and single target plan for massive liver cancer

The Effect of Beams' Orientations on the Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Plan Quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About