Comparison between the four-field box and field-in-field techniques for conformal radiotherapy of the esophagus using dose–volume histograms and normal tissue complication probabilities

Allaveisi, Farzaneh; Moghadam, Amir Nami

doi:10.1007/s11604-017-0637-8

Cited by 12 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The TCP and NTCP were finally obtained based on the EUD. The parameters and endpoints for TCP and NTCP calculations were taken from previous studies (17, 29, 30) and were shown in Table 2A. More importantly, it was well-known that the parameters of the radiobiological models would influence the results, therefore, we also used the Webb-Nahum model (WN model) and the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) model to further confirm our results of TCP and NTCP calculations.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 57%

“…Additionally, these studies have mainly focused on analysis of dose volume histogram (DVH) and dose distributions to evaluate RT plans. However, in some cases in which the treatment plans yield similar levels of dosimetric performance, analyzing other indices based on radiobiology may be essential when attempting to precisely evaluate the treatment outcome, particularly in terms of tumor control and normal tissue sparing (16, 17). But this issue is not received enough attention and the relevant data is rare.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dosimetric and Radiobiological Comparison of External Beam Radiotherapy Using Simultaneous Integrated Boost Technique for Esophageal Cancer in Different Location

Wang

Meng

et al. 2019

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To compare treatment plans of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique for esophageal cancer (EC) of different locations using dosimetry and radiobiology. Methods: Forty EC patients were planned for IMRT, VMAT, and HT plans, including 10 cases located in the cervix, upper, middle, and lower thorax, respectively. Dose-volume metrics, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were analyzed to evaluate treatment plans. Results: HT showed significant improvement over IMRT and VMAT in terms of CI ( p = 0.007), HI ( p < 0.001), and TCP ( p < 0.001) in cervical EC. IMRT yielded more superior CI, HI and TCP compared with VMAT and HT in upper and middle thoracic EC (all p < 0.05). Additionally, V30 (27.72 ± 8.67%), mean dose (1801.47 ± 989.58cGy), and NTCP (Niemierko model: 0.44 ± 0.55%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 0.61 ± 0.59%) of heart in IMRT were sharply reduced than VMAT and HT in middle thoracic EC. For lower thoracic EC, the three techniques offered similar CI and HI (all p > 0.05). But VMAT dramatically lowered liver V30 (9.97 ± 2.84%), and reduced NTCP of lungs (Niemierko model: 0.47 ± 0.48%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 1.41 ± 1.07%) and liver (Niemierko model: 0.10 ± 0.08%; Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model: 0.17 ± 0.17%). Conclusions: HT was a good option for cervical EC with complex target coverage but little lungs and heart involvement as it achieved superior dose conformity and uniformity. Due to potentially improving tumor control and reducing heart dose with acceptable lungs sparing, IMRT was a preferred choice for upper and middle thoracic EC with large lungs involvement. VMAT could ameliorate therapeutic ratio and lower lungs and liver toxicity, which was beneficial for lower thoracic EC with little thoracic involvement but being closer to heart and liver. Individually choosing optimal technique for EC in different location will be warranted.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 57%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosimetric and Radiobiological Comparison of External Beam Radiotherapy Using Simultaneous Integrated Boost Technique for Esophageal Cancer in Different Location

Wang

Meng

et al. 2019

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using consensus target contours, Allaveisi (2017) compared the four-field box and field-in-field techniques in terms of conformity, homogeneity, mean dose, and maximum dose [ 16 ]. The field-in-field technique resulted in a more homogenous dose distribution with a similar conformality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Is the Optimal Radiation Technique for Esophageal Cancer? A Dosimetric Comparison of Four Techniques

Fawaz¹,

Kazandjian²,

Tsui³

et al. 2018

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEsophageal cancer treatment requires large radiation fields due to the deep location of the esophagus in the mediastinum and the high incidence of radial spread. There is no optimal radiation technique to ensure appropriate target coverage and minimal dose to all normal structures.MethodsFifteen consecutive cases of locally advanced esophageal cancer treated with radical chemoradiation (CRT) were analyzed. The total prescribed dose was 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. A total of 60 plans were generated for analysis, including four different methods for each case. Method 1 consisted of a four-field conformal technique; method 2 was a two-plan technique (antero-posterior (AP), postero-anterior (PA), two posterior oblique fields (RPO and LPO)); method 3 was a three-field conformal technique (AP, LPO, RPO); and method 4 was a volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) technique. Dose ratios were calculated using the minimum, maximum, mean, and median doses of methods 2-4 over the dose of method 1. Ratios for the planning target volume (PTV) and to surrounding organs were analyzed.ResultsThe mean PTV dose ratio ranged from 0.994 to 1.048 (SD = 0.01) representing an adequate target coverage for all techniques based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA). For the lungs, method 2 had the lowest lung V20 with a ratio of 0.861 (SD = 0.12), whereas method 3 had the highest with 1.644 (SD = 0.14). For the heart, method 3 had the lowest heart V40 with a mean dose ratio of 0.807 (SD = 0.09), whereas method 2 had the highest with 1.160 (SD = 0.11). For the liver, method 2 had the lowest V30 with a mean ratio of 0.857 (SD = 0.1) whereas method 4 had the highest with 1.672 (SD = 0.48). For the spinal cord, method 3 had the lowest mean dose ratio of 0.559 (SD = 0.09) whereas method 2 had the highest with 1.094 (SD = 0.04).ConclusionThe four radiation techniques for esophageal cancer treatment were appropriate for target coverage. Method 2 had the most organ-sparing effect for the lungs and liver, and method 3 for the heart and spinal cord. VMAT did not add any significant sparing. A case-by-case decision should be made based on the patient’s comorbidities.

show abstract

“…In their study, Yavas et al 21 reported that the FIF technique, compared to the 3D-CRT for the whole breast radiotherapy caused a significant decrease in the maximum dose and mean dose of the PTV. In their study, Allaveisi et al 24 compared the 4-field conformal radiotherapy and FIF radiotherapy of the esophagus and found that FIF causes reduction in the maximum dose of PTV. Therefore, in terms of these parameters, the result of the present study is in agreement with those of previous studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, Yavas et al 26 , Ercan et al 12 , and Allaveisi et al 24 who compared the two techniques and showed significant improvement in HI with the FIF technique. However in the field of CI, there was no significant difference between the two techniques, which was in agreement with the previous study by Baycan et al 13 In terms of total MU, the present study did not show any significant difference between the two techniques, which was in agreement with the previous study by Chui et al 27 In their study, Allaveisi et al 24 found a significant difference between both techniques, because in other studies wedge-based radiation fields are used in the 3D-CRT technique, 21,28 which can be explained by the fact that MU doses are higher with wedge-based plans because of radiation scatter.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Field-in-Field Technique Improves the Dosimetric Outcome of Treatment Plans Compared with the Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy for Esophageal Cancer Radiotherapy

Jabbari¹

2018

UHOD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the dosimetric parameters of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and field-in-field (FIF) techniques for patients with esophageal cancer. Twenty (20) patients with esophageal cancer participated in this study. Two planning techniques (FIF and 3D-CRT) were generated for each patient by the TiGRT treatment planning system. Two indices namely: Dose Homogeneity Index (DHI) and Conformity index (CI), as well as maximum dose, mean dose, minimum dose, dose received by 2% of the target volume (D 2 ); dose received by 98% of the target volume (D 98 ); volume received greater than 107% of the prescribed dose (V> 107%); volume received less than 95% of the prescribed dose (V< 95%); Dose received by organ at risks (OARs) and total Monitor Unit (MUs) were used for the comparison. The mean values were then compared using paired sample t-test. The FIF technique reduced the maximum dose and mean dose in the planning target volume (PTV). The FIF technique had higher D98, lower D 2 and V< 95%. The FIF plan recorded a better DHI than the 3D-CRT technique. However, the FIF did not show any significant differences in minimum dose, V>107%, CI and MUs compared with the 3D-CRT technique. In addition, the FIF technique demonstrated reduced dose received by the OARs in the treated region. The FIF technique enables better dose distribution in the PTV and reduces dose to OARs in esophageal radiotherapy.

show abstract

Comparison between the four-field box and field-in-field techniques for conformal radiotherapy of the esophagus using dose–volume histograms and normal tissue complication probabilities

Cited by 12 publications

References 32 publications

Dosimetric and Radiobiological Comparison of External Beam Radiotherapy Using Simultaneous Integrated Boost Technique for Esophageal Cancer in Different Location

Dosimetric and Radiobiological Comparison of External Beam Radiotherapy Using Simultaneous Integrated Boost Technique for Esophageal Cancer in Different Location

What Is the Optimal Radiation Technique for Esophageal Cancer? A Dosimetric Comparison of Four Techniques

Field-in-Field Technique Improves the Dosimetric Outcome of Treatment Plans Compared with the Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy for Esophageal Cancer Radiotherapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About