Comparison of combinations of irradiation techniques and jaw conditions in intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for lung cancer
Purpose To assist in the selection of a suitable combination of an irradiation technique and jaw condition in intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) for lung cancer treatment plans. Materials and methods Thirty patients with lung cancer who underwent...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of applied clinical medical physics 2021-10, Vol.22 (10), p.178-189 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 189 |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 178 |
container_title | Journal of applied clinical medical physics |
container_volume | 22 |
creator | Peng, Qinghe Shi, Junyue Zhang, Jun Li, Qiwen Li, Zhenghuan Zhang, Qingyuan Peng, Yinglin Chen, Li |
description | Purpose
To assist in the selection of a suitable combination of an irradiation technique and jaw condition in intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) for lung cancer treatment plans.
Materials and methods
Thirty patients with lung cancer who underwent radiotherapy were enrolled retrospectively. They were categorized as having central lung cancer, peripheral lung cancer with mediastinal lymph node metastasis (peripheral E lung cancer), and peripheral lung cancer without mediastinal lymph node metastasis (peripheral N lung cancer). Four treatment plans were designed for each patient: fixed jaw and adaptive jaw IMRT technique (FJ‐IMRT and JA‐IMRT), and fixed jaw and jaw tracking VMAT technique (FJ‐VMAT and JT‐VMAT). The dose parameters of the four group plans were compared and analyzed.
Results
Compared to FJ‐IMRT, JA‐IMRT significantly reduced the mean dose (Dmean) and volume percentage of 5 Gy (V5Gy) of the total lung in central and peripheral N lung cancer. Similarly, compared to FJ‐VMAT, JT‐VMAT provided better protection to most organs at risk (OARs), particularly for total lung and heart. In comparison with IMRT, VMAT significantly improved the conformity index (CI) of the planning target volume for the three lung cancer classifications, and it reduced the dose of almost all OARs except V5Gy and Dmean of the total lung. Moreover, the mean monitor units of the VMAT groups were far lower than the IMRT groups.
Conclusion
Based on the dosimetric findings and considering clinical data published on lung and heart side effects, we propose recommendations on the preferred treatment technique based on tumor location and pulmonary function. For central lung cancer with normal pulmonary function, we advise JT‐VMAT techniques. Conversely, for central lung cancer with poor pulmonary function, we recommend JA‐IMRT techniques. We advocate JA‐IMRT for peripheral E lung cancer. For peripheral N lung cancer, JT‐VMAT techniques are strongly recommended. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/acm2.13416 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8504584</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2580701991</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4256-67ad1ef5e5dc0d65baf49eae48e015cdce9b89b64bb43a4cb1f3676568a9c14e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90c1qFTEUB_Agiv1y4xMEuhHh1mQmycxsCuVirVBxY9fhTHKmN5eZ5JrMWO5C6CP0GfskZjpF1IUQSA755U-SQ8hbzs44Y8UHMENxxkvB1QtyyGWhVk3Dxcs_1gfkKKUtY5zXZf2aHJRCMlk21SH5uQ7DDqJLwdPQUROG1nkYXfBprl2MYN1TTUc0G---T5goeEu3cJe5t27Bzucxok9u3D_ePwzBTj2MaOkcEMYNRtjtaRci7Sd_Sw14g_GEvOqgT_jmeT4mN5cfv62vVtdfP31eX1yvjCikWqkKLMdOorSGWSVb6ESDgKJGxqWxBpu2blol2laUIEzLu1JVSqoaGsMFlsfkfMndTe2A2fsxQq930Q0Q9zqA03_veLfRt-GHriUTshY54N1zQAzzD4x6cMlg34PHMCVdyIo3BeNVkenpP3Qbpujz87KqWcV47khW7xdlYkgpYvf7Mpzpuat67qp-6mrGfMF3rsf9f6S-WH8pljO_AF7Wp-I</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2580701991</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of combinations of irradiation techniques and jaw conditions in intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for lung cancer</title><source>Wiley Journals</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Peng, Qinghe ; Shi, Junyue ; Zhang, Jun ; Li, Qiwen ; Li, Zhenghuan ; Zhang, Qingyuan ; Peng, Yinglin ; Chen, Li</creator><creatorcontrib>Peng, Qinghe ; Shi, Junyue ; Zhang, Jun ; Li, Qiwen ; Li, Zhenghuan ; Zhang, Qingyuan ; Peng, Yinglin ; Chen, Li</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To assist in the selection of a suitable combination of an irradiation technique and jaw condition in intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) for lung cancer treatment plans.
Materials and methods
Thirty patients with lung cancer who underwent radiotherapy were enrolled retrospectively. They were categorized as having central lung cancer, peripheral lung cancer with mediastinal lymph node metastasis (peripheral E lung cancer), and peripheral lung cancer without mediastinal lymph node metastasis (peripheral N lung cancer). Four treatment plans were designed for each patient: fixed jaw and adaptive jaw IMRT technique (FJ‐IMRT and JA‐IMRT), and fixed jaw and jaw tracking VMAT technique (FJ‐VMAT and JT‐VMAT). The dose parameters of the four group plans were compared and analyzed.
Results
Compared to FJ‐IMRT, JA‐IMRT significantly reduced the mean dose (Dmean) and volume percentage of 5 Gy (V5Gy) of the total lung in central and peripheral N lung cancer. Similarly, compared to FJ‐VMAT, JT‐VMAT provided better protection to most organs at risk (OARs), particularly for total lung and heart. In comparison with IMRT, VMAT significantly improved the conformity index (CI) of the planning target volume for the three lung cancer classifications, and it reduced the dose of almost all OARs except V5Gy and Dmean of the total lung. Moreover, the mean monitor units of the VMAT groups were far lower than the IMRT groups.
Conclusion
Based on the dosimetric findings and considering clinical data published on lung and heart side effects, we propose recommendations on the preferred treatment technique based on tumor location and pulmonary function. For central lung cancer with normal pulmonary function, we advise JT‐VMAT techniques. Conversely, for central lung cancer with poor pulmonary function, we recommend JA‐IMRT techniques. We advocate JA‐IMRT for peripheral E lung cancer. For peripheral N lung cancer, JT‐VMAT techniques are strongly recommended.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13416</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34505397</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden Massachusetts: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>adaptive jaw ; Cancer therapies ; Conformity ; Dosimetry ; Esophagus ; IMRT ; jaw tracking ; Lung cancer ; Lymphatic system ; Metastasis ; Patients ; Planning ; Radiation Oncology Physics ; Radiation therapy ; Spinal cord ; VMAT</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021-10, Vol.22 (10), p.178-189</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><rights>2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4256-67ad1ef5e5dc0d65baf49eae48e015cdce9b89b64bb43a4cb1f3676568a9c14e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4256-67ad1ef5e5dc0d65baf49eae48e015cdce9b89b64bb43a4cb1f3676568a9c14e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9887-3429</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504584/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504584/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,1417,11562,27924,27925,45574,45575,46052,46476,53791,53793</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Peng, Qinghe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shi, Junyue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Qiwen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Zhenghuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Qingyuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peng, Yinglin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Li</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of combinations of irradiation techniques and jaw conditions in intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for lung cancer</title><title>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</title><description>Purpose
To assist in the selection of a suitable combination of an irradiation technique and jaw condition in intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) for lung cancer treatment plans.
Materials and methods
Thirty patients with lung cancer who underwent radiotherapy were enrolled retrospectively. They were categorized as having central lung cancer, peripheral lung cancer with mediastinal lymph node metastasis (peripheral E lung cancer), and peripheral lung cancer without mediastinal lymph node metastasis (peripheral N lung cancer). Four treatment plans were designed for each patient: fixed jaw and adaptive jaw IMRT technique (FJ‐IMRT and JA‐IMRT), and fixed jaw and jaw tracking VMAT technique (FJ‐VMAT and JT‐VMAT). The dose parameters of the four group plans were compared and analyzed.
Results
Compared to FJ‐IMRT, JA‐IMRT significantly reduced the mean dose (Dmean) and volume percentage of 5 Gy (V5Gy) of the total lung in central and peripheral N lung cancer. Similarly, compared to FJ‐VMAT, JT‐VMAT provided better protection to most organs at risk (OARs), particularly for total lung and heart. In comparison with IMRT, VMAT significantly improved the conformity index (CI) of the planning target volume for the three lung cancer classifications, and it reduced the dose of almost all OARs except V5Gy and Dmean of the total lung. Moreover, the mean monitor units of the VMAT groups were far lower than the IMRT groups.
Conclusion
Based on the dosimetric findings and considering clinical data published on lung and heart side effects, we propose recommendations on the preferred treatment technique based on tumor location and pulmonary function. For central lung cancer with normal pulmonary function, we advise JT‐VMAT techniques. Conversely, for central lung cancer with poor pulmonary function, we recommend JA‐IMRT techniques. We advocate JA‐IMRT for peripheral E lung cancer. For peripheral N lung cancer, JT‐VMAT techniques are strongly recommended.</description><subject>adaptive jaw</subject><subject>Cancer therapies</subject><subject>Conformity</subject><subject>Dosimetry</subject><subject>Esophagus</subject><subject>IMRT</subject><subject>jaw tracking</subject><subject>Lung cancer</subject><subject>Lymphatic system</subject><subject>Metastasis</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Planning</subject><subject>Radiation Oncology Physics</subject><subject>Radiation therapy</subject><subject>Spinal cord</subject><subject>VMAT</subject><issn>1526-9914</issn><issn>1526-9914</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp90c1qFTEUB_Agiv1y4xMEuhHh1mQmycxsCuVirVBxY9fhTHKmN5eZ5JrMWO5C6CP0GfskZjpF1IUQSA755U-SQ8hbzs44Y8UHMENxxkvB1QtyyGWhVk3Dxcs_1gfkKKUtY5zXZf2aHJRCMlk21SH5uQ7DDqJLwdPQUROG1nkYXfBprl2MYN1TTUc0G---T5goeEu3cJe5t27Bzucxok9u3D_ePwzBTj2MaOkcEMYNRtjtaRci7Sd_Sw14g_GEvOqgT_jmeT4mN5cfv62vVtdfP31eX1yvjCikWqkKLMdOorSGWSVb6ESDgKJGxqWxBpu2blol2laUIEzLu1JVSqoaGsMFlsfkfMndTe2A2fsxQq930Q0Q9zqA03_veLfRt-GHriUTshY54N1zQAzzD4x6cMlg34PHMCVdyIo3BeNVkenpP3Qbpujz87KqWcV47khW7xdlYkgpYvf7Mpzpuat67qp-6mrGfMF3rsf9f6S-WH8pljO_AF7Wp-I</recordid><startdate>202110</startdate><enddate>202110</enddate><creator>Peng, Qinghe</creator><creator>Shi, Junyue</creator><creator>Zhang, Jun</creator><creator>Li, Qiwen</creator><creator>Li, Zhenghuan</creator><creator>Zhang, Qingyuan</creator><creator>Peng, Yinglin</creator><creator>Chen, Li</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9887-3429</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202110</creationdate><title>Comparison of combinations of irradiation techniques and jaw conditions in intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for lung cancer</title><author>Peng, Qinghe ; Shi, Junyue ; Zhang, Jun ; Li, Qiwen ; Li, Zhenghuan ; Zhang, Qingyuan ; Peng, Yinglin ; Chen, Li</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4256-67ad1ef5e5dc0d65baf49eae48e015cdce9b89b64bb43a4cb1f3676568a9c14e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>adaptive jaw</topic><topic>Cancer therapies</topic><topic>Conformity</topic><topic>Dosimetry</topic><topic>Esophagus</topic><topic>IMRT</topic><topic>jaw tracking</topic><topic>Lung cancer</topic><topic>Lymphatic system</topic><topic>Metastasis</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Planning</topic><topic>Radiation Oncology Physics</topic><topic>Radiation therapy</topic><topic>Spinal cord</topic><topic>VMAT</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Peng, Qinghe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shi, Junyue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Qiwen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Zhenghuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Qingyuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peng, Yinglin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Li</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Peng, Qinghe</au><au>Shi, Junyue</au><au>Zhang, Jun</au><au>Li, Qiwen</au><au>Li, Zhenghuan</au><au>Zhang, Qingyuan</au><au>Peng, Yinglin</au><au>Chen, Li</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of combinations of irradiation techniques and jaw conditions in intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for lung cancer</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</jtitle><date>2021-10</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>178</spage><epage>189</epage><pages>178-189</pages><issn>1526-9914</issn><eissn>1526-9914</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To assist in the selection of a suitable combination of an irradiation technique and jaw condition in intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) for lung cancer treatment plans.
Materials and methods
Thirty patients with lung cancer who underwent radiotherapy were enrolled retrospectively. They were categorized as having central lung cancer, peripheral lung cancer with mediastinal lymph node metastasis (peripheral E lung cancer), and peripheral lung cancer without mediastinal lymph node metastasis (peripheral N lung cancer). Four treatment plans were designed for each patient: fixed jaw and adaptive jaw IMRT technique (FJ‐IMRT and JA‐IMRT), and fixed jaw and jaw tracking VMAT technique (FJ‐VMAT and JT‐VMAT). The dose parameters of the four group plans were compared and analyzed.
Results
Compared to FJ‐IMRT, JA‐IMRT significantly reduced the mean dose (Dmean) and volume percentage of 5 Gy (V5Gy) of the total lung in central and peripheral N lung cancer. Similarly, compared to FJ‐VMAT, JT‐VMAT provided better protection to most organs at risk (OARs), particularly for total lung and heart. In comparison with IMRT, VMAT significantly improved the conformity index (CI) of the planning target volume for the three lung cancer classifications, and it reduced the dose of almost all OARs except V5Gy and Dmean of the total lung. Moreover, the mean monitor units of the VMAT groups were far lower than the IMRT groups.
Conclusion
Based on the dosimetric findings and considering clinical data published on lung and heart side effects, we propose recommendations on the preferred treatment technique based on tumor location and pulmonary function. For central lung cancer with normal pulmonary function, we advise JT‐VMAT techniques. Conversely, for central lung cancer with poor pulmonary function, we recommend JA‐IMRT techniques. We advocate JA‐IMRT for peripheral E lung cancer. For peripheral N lung cancer, JT‐VMAT techniques are strongly recommended.</abstract><cop>Malden Massachusetts</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>34505397</pmid><doi>10.1002/acm2.13416</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9887-3429</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1526-9914 |
ispartof | Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021-10, Vol.22 (10), p.178-189 |
issn | 1526-9914 1526-9914 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8504584 |
source | Wiley Journals; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection); PubMed Central |
subjects | adaptive jaw Cancer therapies Conformity Dosimetry Esophagus IMRT jaw tracking Lung cancer Lymphatic system Metastasis Patients Planning Radiation Oncology Physics Radiation therapy Spinal cord VMAT |
title | Comparison of combinations of irradiation techniques and jaw conditions in intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for lung cancer |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T13%3A08%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20combinations%20of%20irradiation%20techniques%20and%20jaw%20conditions%20in%20intensity%E2%80%90modulated%20radiotherapy%20for%20lung%20cancer&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20clinical%20medical%20physics&rft.au=Peng,%20Qinghe&rft.date=2021-10&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=178&rft.epage=189&rft.pages=178-189&rft.issn=1526-9914&rft.eissn=1526-9914&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/acm2.13416&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2580701991%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2580701991&rft_id=info:pmid/34505397&rfr_iscdi=true |