Article

Clinical study of the necessity of replanning before the 25th fraction during the course of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Department of Radiation Oncology, Taizhou Hospital, Wenzhou Medical College, Taizhou, Zhejiang, China.
International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics (Impact Factor: 4.59). 02/2010; 77(2):617-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.08.036
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To quantify the target and normal structures on dose distributing variations during intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and to assess the value of replanning for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients.
Twenty-eight NPC patients treated with IMRT were recruited. The IMRT was delivered in 33 fractions, to 70 to 76Gy, to the gross tumor volume (GTV). Before the 25th fraction of IMRT, a new simulation computed tomography (CT) scan was acquired for all patients. According to the dose constraint criterion in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0225 protocol, the replanning was generated on the new simulation CT. With the Quality Assessment Center of a CORVUS 6.3 treatment planning system, a phantom plan was generated for each patient by applying the beam configurations of the initial plan to the anatomy of the new simulation CT. The dose-volume histograms of the phantom plan were compared with the replanning.
The percentage of prescription dose delivered to the clinical target volume (CTV1) was significantly increased by 4.91% +/- 10.89%, whereas the maximum dose to the spinal cord, mean dose to the left parotid, and V30 to the right parotid were significantly decreased by 5.00 +/- 9.23Gy, 4.23 +/- 10.03Gy, and 11.47% +/- 18.89% respectively in the replanning, compared with the phantom plan (p < 0.05). Based on the dose constraint criterion in the RTOG0225 protocol, 50% of phantom plans (14/28) were out of limit for the dose to the normal critical structures, whereas no plan was out of limit in replanning (p < 0.001).
Replanning for patients with NPC before the 25th fraction during IMRT helps to ensure adequate dose to the target volumes and safe doses to critical normal structures.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
56 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aimed to quantify dosimetric effects of weight loss for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Overall, 25 patients with NPC treated with IMRT were enrolled. We simulated weight loss during IMRT on the computer. Weight loss model was based on the planning computed tomography (CT) images. The original external contour of head and neck was labeled plan 0, and its volume was regarded as pretreatment normal weight. We shrank the external contour with different margins (2, 3, and 5mm) and generated new external contours of head and neck. The volumes of reconstructed external contours were regarded as weight during radiotherapy. After recontouring outlines, the initial treatment plan was mapped to the redefined CT scans with the same beam configurations, yielding new plans. The computer model represented a theoretical proportional weight loss of 3.4% to 13.7% during the course of IMRT. The dose delivered to the planning target volume (PTV) of primary gross tumor volume and clinical target volume significantly increased by 1.9% to 2.9% and 1.8% to 2.9% because of weight loss, respectively. The dose to the PTV of gross tumor volume of lymph nodes fluctuated from -2.0% to 1.0%. The dose to the brain stem and the spinal cord was increased (p < 0.001), whereas the dose to the parotid gland was decreased (p < 0.001). Weight loss may lead to significant dosimetric change during IMRT. Repeated scanning and replanning for patients with NPC with an obvious weight loss may be necessary.
    Medical dosimetry: official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists 10/2013; · 1.26 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Replanning in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) has been reported to improve quality of life and loco-regional control in patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC). Determination of the criteria for replanning is, however, urgently needed. We conducted a prospective study to determine when and for what type of patients is replanning preferred through weekly repeat computed tomography (CT) imaging during the course of IMRT. We recruited 20 patients who were diagnosed as having loco-regionally advanced, non-metastatic stage III or IVa NPC and treated with concurrent platinum-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) using IMRT. Patients received CT simulation (sim-CT) and plain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plus diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) weekly for five consecutive weeks. The gross tumor volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) were delineated and recorded weekly based on the CT-CT fusion. The relationship between GTV/CTV reduction and clinical characteristics of the patients were assessed using Pearson correlation test. GTV and CTV decreased during the treatment by 36.03 mL (range, 10.91--98.82 mL) and 76.79 mL (range, 33.94--125.14 mL), respectively, after 25 fractions of treatment. The percentage reductions from their initial volume were 38.4% (range, 25.3--50.7%) and 11.8% (range, 6.7--18.3%), respectively. The greatest reductions in GTV and CTV were observed at the fourth week (i.e., upon completion of 20 fractions), compared to pre-treatment sim-CT. Weight loss and CTV reduction were significantly correlated with pre-treatment body mass index (BMI ) (r = 0.58, P = 0.012, and r = 0.48, P = 0.046, respectively). However, no significant correlation was observed between CTV reduction and initial tumor volume. In addition, GTV reduction was not significantly correlated with pre-treatment tumor volume (P = 0.65), but negatively correlated with pre-treatment tumor apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values (r = -0.46, P = 0.042). Our results indicate that the most appropriate replanning time is after 20 fractions of treatment, and pre-treatment BMI and ADC are potential predictive factors for the determination of replanning during IMRT.
    BMC Cancer 11/2013; 13(1):548. · 3.33 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate the feasibility and benefits of a modified adaptive radiotherapy (ART) by replanning in the initial CT (iCT) with new contours from a repeat CT (rCT) based on CT-CT image fusion for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) patients underwent volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT).Materials and methods: Nine NPC patients underwent VMAT treatment with a rCT at 23rd fraction were enrolled in this study. Dosimetric differences for replanning VMAT plans in the iCT and in the rCT were compared. Volumetric and dosimetric changes of gross tumor volume (GTV) and organs at risk (OARs) of this modified ART were also investigated. No dosimetric differences between replanning in the iCT and in the rCT were observed. The average volume of GTV decreased from 78.83 +/- 38.42 cm3 in the iCT to 71.44 +/- 37.46 cm3 in the rCT, but with no significant difference (p = 0.42).The average volume of the left and right parotid decreased from 19.91 +/- 4.89 cm3 and 21.58 +/- 6.16 cm3 in the iCT to 11.80 +/- 2.79 cm3 and 13.29 +/- 4.17 cm3 in the rCT (both p < 0.01), respectively. The volume of other OARs did not shrink very much. No significant differences on PTVGTV and PTVCTV coverage were observed for replanning with this modified ART. Compared to the initial plans, the average mean dose of the left and right parotid after re-optimization were decreased by 62.5 cGy (p = 0.05) and 67.3 cGy (p = 0.02), respectively, and the V5 (the volume receiving 5 Gy) of the left and right parotids were decreased by 7.8% (p = 0.01) and 11.2% (p = 0.001), respectively. There was no significant difference on the dose delivered to other OARs. Patients with NPC undergoing VMAT have significant anatomic and dosimetric changes to parotids. Repeat CT as an anatomic changes reference and re-optimization in the iCT based on CT-CT image fusion was accurate enough to identify the volume changes and to ensure safe dose to parotids.
    Radiation Oncology 11/2013; 8(1):277. · 2.11 Impact Factor