A comparative planning study of step-and-shoot IMRT versus helical tomotherapy for whole-pelvis irradiation in cervical cancer
The aim of this study was to compare the dosimetric parameters of whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) for cervical cancer between step-and-shoot IMRT (SaS-IMRT) and Helical Tomotherapy™ (HT). Retrospective analysis was performed on 20 cervical cancer patients who received WPRT in our center between Jan...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of radiation research 2015-05, Vol.56 (3), p.539-545 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 545 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 539 |
| container_title | Journal of radiation research |
| container_volume | 56 |
| creator | Chitapanarux, Imjai Tharavichitkul, Ekkasit Nobnop, Wannapa Wanwilairat, Somsak Vongtama, Roy Traisathit, Patrinee |
| description | The aim of this study was to compare the dosimetric parameters of whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) for cervical cancer between step-and-shoot IMRT (SaS-IMRT) and Helical Tomotherapy™ (HT). Retrospective analysis was performed on 20 cervical cancer patients who received WPRT in our center between January 2011 and January 2014. SaS-IMRT and HT treatment plans were generated for each patient. The dosimetric values for target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing were compared according to the criteria of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 83 (ICRU 83) guidelines. Differences in beam-on time (BOT) were also compared. All the PTV dosimetric parameters (D5%, D50% and D95%) for the HT plan were (statistically significantly) of better quality than those for the SaS-IMRT plan (P-value < 0.001 in all respects). HT was also significantly more accurate than SaS-IMRT with respect to the D98% and Dmean of the CTV (P-values of 0.008 and |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1093/jrr/rrv004 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4426928</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A536154540</galeid><oup_id>10.1093/jrr/rrv004</oup_id><sourcerecordid>A536154540</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c631t-b04cc8770b59cecaa62dd2437f98b38d7a96098e624f6f8ce30a33ef2d21cb1b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkt1r1TAYxoso7ji98Q-QgAgidMtXk-ZmcBh-DCaCzOuQpm9PM9qkJm3l3Pi3m3nmcCAycpGX5Pc8vDw8RfGS4BOCFTu9jvE0xhVj_qjYEMZVqUglHxcbzPPMsMBHxbOUrjGmElf4aXFEK0mxlGRT_NwiG8bJRDO7FdA0GO-d36E0L-0ehS4PMJXGt2XqQ5jRxeevV2iFmJaEehicNQOawxjmHqKZ9qgLEf3owwDlBMPqEnIxmtZl9-CR88hCXH-LrPF5fl486cyQ4MXtfVx8-_D-6vxTefnl48X59rK0gpG5bDC3tpYSN5WyYI0RtG0pZ7JTdcPqVholsKpBUN6JrrbAsGEMOtpSYhvSsOPi7OA7Lc0IrQU_RzPoKbrRxL0Oxun7P971ehdWzTkVitbZ4O2tQQzfF0izHl2yMOS8ICxJE1kLUnPF6QNQRmv6MFTUWHKFlcro6wO6MwNo57uQ97Q3uN5WTJCKVxxn6uQfVD4tjM4GD53L7_cE7w4CG0NKEbq7TAjWN-3SuV360K4Mv_o7xTv0T50y8OYAhGX6n9EvxMbaIw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1680749099</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparative planning study of step-and-shoot IMRT versus helical tomotherapy for whole-pelvis irradiation in cervical cancer</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Oxford Journals Open Access Collection</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Chitapanarux, Imjai ; Tharavichitkul, Ekkasit ; Nobnop, Wannapa ; Wanwilairat, Somsak ; Vongtama, Roy ; Traisathit, Patrinee</creator><creatorcontrib>Chitapanarux, Imjai ; Tharavichitkul, Ekkasit ; Nobnop, Wannapa ; Wanwilairat, Somsak ; Vongtama, Roy ; Traisathit, Patrinee</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[The aim of this study was to compare the dosimetric parameters of whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) for cervical cancer between step-and-shoot IMRT (SaS-IMRT) and Helical Tomotherapy™ (HT). Retrospective analysis was performed on 20 cervical cancer patients who received WPRT in our center between January 2011 and January 2014. SaS-IMRT and HT treatment plans were generated for each patient. The dosimetric values for target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing were compared according to the criteria of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 83 (ICRU 83) guidelines. Differences in beam-on time (BOT) were also compared. All the PTV dosimetric parameters (D5%, D50% and D95%) for the HT plan were (statistically significantly) of better quality than those for the SaS-IMRT plan (P-value < 0.001 in all respects). HT was also significantly more accurate than SaS-IMRT with respect to the D98% and Dmean of the CTV (P-values of 0.008 and <0.001, respectively). The median Conformity Index (CI) did not differ between the two plans (P-value = 0.057). However, the Uniformity Index for HT was significantly better than that for SaS-IMRT (P-value < 0.001). The median of D50% for the bladder, rectum and small bowel were significantly lower in HT planning than SaS-IMRT (P-value < 0.001). For D2%, we found that HT provided better sparing to the rectum and bladder (P-value < 0.001). However, the median of D2% for the small bowel was comparable for both plans. The median of Dmax of the head of the left femur was significantly lower in the HT plan, but this did not apply for the head of the right femur. BOT for HT was significantly shorter than for SaS-IMRT (P-value < 0.001). HT provided highly accurate plans, with more homogeneous PTV coverage and superior sparing of OARs than SaS-IMRT. In addition, HT enabled a shorter delivery time than SaS-IMRT.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 0449-3060</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1349-9157</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrv004</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25720771</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Cancer ; Care and treatment ; Cervical cancer ; Comparative analysis ; Criteria ; Female ; Guidelines ; Heat treatment ; Helical ; Humans ; Irradiation ; Middle Aged ; Oncology ; Organs at Risk - radiation effects ; Patients ; Pelvis - radiation effects ; Radiation Protection - methods ; Radiography ; Radiotherapy ; Radiotherapy Dosage ; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><ispartof>Journal of radiation research, 2015-05, Vol.56 (3), p.539-545</ispartof><rights>The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Japan Radiation Research Society and Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology. 2015</rights><rights>The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Japan Radiation Research Society and Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2015 Oxford University Press</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c631t-b04cc8770b59cecaa62dd2437f98b38d7a96098e624f6f8ce30a33ef2d21cb1b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c631t-b04cc8770b59cecaa62dd2437f98b38d7a96098e624f6f8ce30a33ef2d21cb1b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4426928/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4426928/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,1604,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25720771$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chitapanarux, Imjai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tharavichitkul, Ekkasit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nobnop, Wannapa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wanwilairat, Somsak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vongtama, Roy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Traisathit, Patrinee</creatorcontrib><title>A comparative planning study of step-and-shoot IMRT versus helical tomotherapy for whole-pelvis irradiation in cervical cancer</title><title>Journal of radiation research</title><addtitle>J Radiat Res</addtitle><description><![CDATA[The aim of this study was to compare the dosimetric parameters of whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) for cervical cancer between step-and-shoot IMRT (SaS-IMRT) and Helical Tomotherapy™ (HT). Retrospective analysis was performed on 20 cervical cancer patients who received WPRT in our center between January 2011 and January 2014. SaS-IMRT and HT treatment plans were generated for each patient. The dosimetric values for target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing were compared according to the criteria of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 83 (ICRU 83) guidelines. Differences in beam-on time (BOT) were also compared. All the PTV dosimetric parameters (D5%, D50% and D95%) for the HT plan were (statistically significantly) of better quality than those for the SaS-IMRT plan (P-value < 0.001 in all respects). HT was also significantly more accurate than SaS-IMRT with respect to the D98% and Dmean of the CTV (P-values of 0.008 and <0.001, respectively). The median Conformity Index (CI) did not differ between the two plans (P-value = 0.057). However, the Uniformity Index for HT was significantly better than that for SaS-IMRT (P-value < 0.001). The median of D50% for the bladder, rectum and small bowel were significantly lower in HT planning than SaS-IMRT (P-value < 0.001). For D2%, we found that HT provided better sparing to the rectum and bladder (P-value < 0.001). However, the median of D2% for the small bowel was comparable for both plans. The median of Dmax of the head of the left femur was significantly lower in the HT plan, but this did not apply for the head of the right femur. BOT for HT was significantly shorter than for SaS-IMRT (P-value < 0.001). HT provided highly accurate plans, with more homogeneous PTV coverage and superior sparing of OARs than SaS-IMRT. In addition, HT enabled a shorter delivery time than SaS-IMRT.]]></description><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Cervical cancer</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Criteria</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>Heat treatment</subject><subject>Helical</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Irradiation</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Organs at Risk - radiation effects</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pelvis - radiation effects</subject><subject>Radiation Protection - methods</subject><subject>Radiography</subject><subject>Radiotherapy</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Dosage</subject><subject>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods</subject><subject>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - radiotherapy</subject><issn>0449-3060</issn><issn>1349-9157</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>TOX</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkt1r1TAYxoso7ji98Q-QgAgidMtXk-ZmcBh-DCaCzOuQpm9PM9qkJm3l3Pi3m3nmcCAycpGX5Pc8vDw8RfGS4BOCFTu9jvE0xhVj_qjYEMZVqUglHxcbzPPMsMBHxbOUrjGmElf4aXFEK0mxlGRT_NwiG8bJRDO7FdA0GO-d36E0L-0ehS4PMJXGt2XqQ5jRxeevV2iFmJaEehicNQOawxjmHqKZ9qgLEf3owwDlBMPqEnIxmtZl9-CR88hCXH-LrPF5fl486cyQ4MXtfVx8-_D-6vxTefnl48X59rK0gpG5bDC3tpYSN5WyYI0RtG0pZ7JTdcPqVholsKpBUN6JrrbAsGEMOtpSYhvSsOPi7OA7Lc0IrQU_RzPoKbrRxL0Oxun7P971ehdWzTkVitbZ4O2tQQzfF0izHl2yMOS8ICxJE1kLUnPF6QNQRmv6MFTUWHKFlcro6wO6MwNo57uQ97Q3uN5WTJCKVxxn6uQfVD4tjM4GD53L7_cE7w4CG0NKEbq7TAjWN-3SuV360K4Mv_o7xTv0T50y8OYAhGX6n9EvxMbaIw</recordid><startdate>20150501</startdate><enddate>20150501</enddate><creator>Chitapanarux, Imjai</creator><creator>Tharavichitkul, Ekkasit</creator><creator>Nobnop, Wannapa</creator><creator>Wanwilairat, Somsak</creator><creator>Vongtama, Roy</creator><creator>Traisathit, Patrinee</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>TOX</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7U1</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150501</creationdate><title>A comparative planning study of step-and-shoot IMRT versus helical tomotherapy for whole-pelvis irradiation in cervical cancer</title><author>Chitapanarux, Imjai ; Tharavichitkul, Ekkasit ; Nobnop, Wannapa ; Wanwilairat, Somsak ; Vongtama, Roy ; Traisathit, Patrinee</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c631t-b04cc8770b59cecaa62dd2437f98b38d7a96098e624f6f8ce30a33ef2d21cb1b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Cervical cancer</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Criteria</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>Heat treatment</topic><topic>Helical</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Irradiation</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Organs at Risk - radiation effects</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pelvis - radiation effects</topic><topic>Radiation Protection - methods</topic><topic>Radiography</topic><topic>Radiotherapy</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Dosage</topic><topic>Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods</topic><topic>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - radiotherapy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chitapanarux, Imjai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tharavichitkul, Ekkasit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nobnop, Wannapa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wanwilairat, Somsak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vongtama, Roy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Traisathit, Patrinee</creatorcontrib><collection>Oxford Journals Open Access Collection</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Risk Abstracts</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of radiation research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chitapanarux, Imjai</au><au>Tharavichitkul, Ekkasit</au><au>Nobnop, Wannapa</au><au>Wanwilairat, Somsak</au><au>Vongtama, Roy</au><au>Traisathit, Patrinee</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparative planning study of step-and-shoot IMRT versus helical tomotherapy for whole-pelvis irradiation in cervical cancer</atitle><jtitle>Journal of radiation research</jtitle><addtitle>J Radiat Res</addtitle><date>2015-05-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>56</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>539</spage><epage>545</epage><pages>539-545</pages><issn>0449-3060</issn><eissn>1349-9157</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[The aim of this study was to compare the dosimetric parameters of whole-pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) for cervical cancer between step-and-shoot IMRT (SaS-IMRT) and Helical Tomotherapy™ (HT). Retrospective analysis was performed on 20 cervical cancer patients who received WPRT in our center between January 2011 and January 2014. SaS-IMRT and HT treatment plans were generated for each patient. The dosimetric values for target coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing were compared according to the criteria of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 83 (ICRU 83) guidelines. Differences in beam-on time (BOT) were also compared. All the PTV dosimetric parameters (D5%, D50% and D95%) for the HT plan were (statistically significantly) of better quality than those for the SaS-IMRT plan (P-value < 0.001 in all respects). HT was also significantly more accurate than SaS-IMRT with respect to the D98% and Dmean of the CTV (P-values of 0.008 and <0.001, respectively). The median Conformity Index (CI) did not differ between the two plans (P-value = 0.057). However, the Uniformity Index for HT was significantly better than that for SaS-IMRT (P-value < 0.001). The median of D50% for the bladder, rectum and small bowel were significantly lower in HT planning than SaS-IMRT (P-value < 0.001). For D2%, we found that HT provided better sparing to the rectum and bladder (P-value < 0.001). However, the median of D2% for the small bowel was comparable for both plans. The median of Dmax of the head of the left femur was significantly lower in the HT plan, but this did not apply for the head of the right femur. BOT for HT was significantly shorter than for SaS-IMRT (P-value < 0.001). HT provided highly accurate plans, with more homogeneous PTV coverage and superior sparing of OARs than SaS-IMRT. In addition, HT enabled a shorter delivery time than SaS-IMRT.]]></abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>25720771</pmid><doi>10.1093/jrr/rrv004</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0449-3060 |
| ispartof | Journal of radiation research, 2015-05, Vol.56 (3), p.539-545 |
| issn | 0449-3060 1349-9157 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4426928 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Oxford Journals Open Access Collection; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Cancer Care and treatment Cervical cancer Comparative analysis Criteria Female Guidelines Heat treatment Helical Humans Irradiation Middle Aged Oncology Organs at Risk - radiation effects Patients Pelvis - radiation effects Radiation Protection - methods Radiography Radiotherapy Radiotherapy Dosage Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - radiotherapy |
| title | A comparative planning study of step-and-shoot IMRT versus helical tomotherapy for whole-pelvis irradiation in cervical cancer |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T16%3A33%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparative%20planning%20study%20of%20step-and-shoot%20IMRT%20versus%20helical%20tomotherapy%20for%20whole-pelvis%20irradiation%20in%20cervical%20cancer&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20radiation%20research&rft.au=Chitapanarux,%20Imjai&rft.date=2015-05-01&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=539&rft.epage=545&rft.pages=539-545&rft.issn=0449-3060&rft.eissn=1349-9157&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/jrr/rrv004&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA536154540%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1680749099&rft_id=info:pmid/25720771&rft_galeid=A536154540&rft_oup_id=10.1093/jrr/rrv004&rfr_iscdi=true |