Article

Tomotherapy and other innovative IMRT delivery systems.

Department of Medical Physics, Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, Wirral, United Kingdom.
Seminars in Radiation Onchology (Impact Factor: 3.77). 11/2006; 16(4):199-208. DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2006.04.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Fixed-field treatments, delivered using conventional clinical linear accelerators fitted with multileaf collimators, have rapidly become the standard form of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Several innovative nonstandard alternatives also exist, for which delivery and treatment planning systems are now commercially available. Three of these nonstandard IMRT approaches are reviewed here: tomotherapy, robotic linear accelerators (CyberKnife, Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA), and standard linear accelerators modulated by jaws alone or by their jaws acting together with a tertiary beam-masking device. Rationales for the nonstandard IMRT approaches are discussed, and elements of their delivery system designs are briefly described. Differences between fixed-field IMRT dose distributions and the distributions that can be delivered by using the nonstandard technologies are outlined. Because conventional linear accelerators are finely honed machines, innovative design enhancement of one aspect of system performance often limits another facet of machine capability. Consequently the various delivery systems may prove optimal for different types of treatment, with specific machine designs excelling for disease sites with specific target volume and normal structure topologies. However it is likely that the delivery systems will be distinguished not just by the optimality of the dose distributions they deliver, but also by factors such as the efficiency of their treatment process, the integration of their onboard imaging systems into that process, and their ability to measure and minimize or compensate for target movement, including the effects of respiratory motion.

Full-text

Available from: Minesh P Mehta, Feb 18, 2015
3 Followers
 · 
111 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: To determine the influence of patient and tumor characteristics on clinical outcomes in patients with early‐stage non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with helical intensity modulated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT).Methods: From March 2005 to August 2010 a total of 62 patients with biopsy proven Stage I NSCLC underwent helical SBRT with 48 Gy in 4 fractions or 60 Gy in 5 fractions. Patient and tumor characteristics including tumor stage, age, sex, tumor histology, maximal tumor diameter, and smoking history, were evaluated in regard to local control and overall survival using Kaplan‐Meier survival curves and the Cox proportional hazard method. Treatment related toxicity in the patient subgroups was evaluated.Results: The median follow‐up was 28 months. Total cohort local control was 93.55% and 3‐year overall survival (OS) was 53.4%. Those patients with Stage IA disease had a 3‐year OS of 64.4% versus 32.1% for Stage IB disease (P = 0.042). Tumors classified as T1a (≤20 mm) and T1b (20–30 mm) had significantly increased overall survival compared to T2 (>30 mm) tumors (P = 0.046). There was a slight survival advantage in those patients with adenocarcinoma. No correlation between age, gender or smoking history, and overall survival was found. Nine patients had radiation related toxicity, which was increasingly more common with advancing age.Conclusion: Helical SBRT is an effective method to treat NSCLC and the most significant prognostic factors were tumor stage and size. There was no correlation between age, gender, and smoking history.
    Thoracic Cancer 02/2013; 4(1). DOI:10.1111/j.1759-7714.2012.00137.x · 1.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: The overall aim was to conduct an analytical study of the impact of the modulation factor (MF) on the quality of the head and neck treatment plans and their execution time on Tomotherapy. Materials and Methods: In-phantom (RANDO® Alderson) planning study of the head and neck cancer was performed. Thirteen different plans in terms of MF were prepared. Other optimization parameters were the same for all plans. Results: Analysis of treatment plans in terms of quality shows that MF < 1.4 does not provide an accepted dose distribution (physician decision). Statistically significant differences were observed for plans with an MF < 1.6. No differences were obtained for plans with MF from 6.0 to 1.8. Decreasing of MF leads to a shorter time of irradiation. The maximum rotational speed has been reached for an MF = 3.0. Further reducing this however produces no decrease in the time of irradiation. The actual and planned values of the MF were compared. The optimal range of MF for head and neck was determined as 3.0 > MF > 1.8. The lower limit increases to 2.4 when hard reduction of the dose in critical organs is required. Conclusions: It was showed that the final MF value is less than the value calculated after each loop of optimization. The computer system reduces MF by shortening the longest time and increasing the average time of leaves opening. Increase in the average time is obtained by eliminating the use of leafs with the shortest times of opening, thereby reducing the dose in critical organs that are outside the direct irradiation area.
    Journal of cancer research and therapeutics 12/2013; 9(4):618-23. DOI:10.4103/0973-1482.126458 · 0.95 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Radiotherapy has extensively been employed as a curative or palliative intervention against cancer throughout the last century, with a varying degree of success. For a long time, the antineoplastic activity of X- and γ-rays was entirely ascribed to their capacity of damaging macromolecules, in particular DNA, and hence triggering the (apoptotic) demise of malignant cells. However, accumulating evidence indicates that (at least part of) the clinical potential of radiotherapy stems from cancer cell-extrinsic mechanisms, including the normalization of tumor vasculature as well as short- and long-range bystander effects. Local bystander effects involve either the direct transmission of lethal signals between cells connected by gap junctions or the production of diffusible cytotoxic mediators, including reactive oxygen species, nitric oxide and cytokines. Conversely, long-range bystander effects, also known as out-of-field or abscopal effects, presumably reflect the elicitation of tumor-specific adaptive immune responses. Ionizing rays have indeed been shown to promote the immunogenic demise of malignant cells, a process that relies on the spatiotemporally defined emanation of specific damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs). Thus, irradiation reportedly improves the clinical efficacy of other treatment modalities such as surgery (both in neo-adjuvant and adjuvant settings) or chemotherapy. Moreover, at least under some circumstances, radiotherapy may potentiate anticancer immune responses as elicited by various immunotherapeutic agents, including (but presumably not limited to) immunomodulatory monoclonal antibodies, cancer-specific vaccines, dendritic cell-based interventions and Toll-like receptor agonists. Here, we review the rationale of using radiotherapy, alone or combined with immunomodulatory agents, as a means to elicit or boost anticancer immune responses, and present recent clinical trials investigating the therapeutic potential of this approach in cancer patients.
    OncoImmunology 09/2013; 2(9):e25595. DOI:10.4161/onci.25595 · 6.28 Impact Factor