| 1. |
- Mavroidis, Panayiotis, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of the helical tomotherapy and MLC-based IMRT radiation modalities in treating brain and cranio-spinal tumors.
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment. - : SAGE Publications. - 1533-0346 .- 1533-0338. ; 8:1, s. 3-14
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The investigation of the clinical efficacy and effectiveness of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) using Multileaf Collimators (MLC) and Helical Tomotherapy (HT) has been an issue of increasing interest over the past few years. In order to assess the suitability of a treatment plan, dosimetric criteria such as dose-volume histograms (DVH), maximum, minimum, mean, and standard deviation of the dose distribution are typically used. Nevertheless, the radiobiological parameters of the different tumors and normal tissues are often not taken into account. The use of the biologically effective uniform dose (D=) together with the complication-free tumor control probability (P(+)) were applied to evaluate the two radiation modalities. Two different clinical cases of brain and cranio-spinal axis cancers have been investigated by developing a linac MLC-based step-and-shoot IMRT plan and a Helical Tomotherapy plan. The treatment plans of the MLC-based IMRT were developed on the Philips treatment planning station using the Pinnacle 7.6 software release while the dedicated Tomotherapy treatment planning station was used for the HT plan. With the use of the P(+) index and the D(=) concept as the common prescription point, the different treatment plans were compared based on radiobiological measures. The tissue response probabilities were plotted against D(=) for a range of prescription doses. The applied plan evaluation method shows that in the brain cancer, the HT treatment gives slightly better results than the MLC-based IMRT in terms of optimum expected clinical outcome (P(+) of 66.1% and 63.5% for a D(=) to the PTV of 63.0 Gy and 62.0 Gy, respectively). In the cranio-spinal axis cancer, the HT plan is significantly better compared to the MLC-based IMRT plan over the clinically useful dose prescription range (P(+) of 84.1% and 28.3% for a D(=) to the PTV of 50.6 Gy and 44.0 Gy, respectively). If a higher than 5% risk for complications could be allowed, the complication-free tumor control could be increased by almost 30% compared to the initial dose prescription. In comparison to MLC based-IMRT, HT can better encompass the often large PTV while minimizing the volume of the OARs receiving high dose. A radiobiological treatment plan evaluation can provide a closer association of the delivered treatment with the clinical outcome by taking into account the dose-response relations of the irradiated tumors and normal tissues. The use of P - (D=) diagrams can complement the traditional tools of evaluation such as DVHs, in order to compare and effectively evaluate different treatment plans.
|
|
| 2. |
- Mavroidis, Panayiotis, et al.
(författare)
-
Treatment plan comparison between helical tomotherapy and MLC-based IMRT using radiobiological measures.
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Phys Med Biol. - : IOP Publishing. - 0031-9155 .- 1361-6560. ; 52:13, s. 3817-36
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The rapid implementation of advanced treatment planning and delivery technologies for radiation therapy has brought new challenges in evaluating the most effective treatment modality. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) using multi-leaf collimators (MLC) and helical tomotherapy (HT) are becoming popular modes of treatment delivery and their application and effectiveness continues to be investigated. Presently, there are several treatment planning systems (TPS) that can generate and optimize IMRT plans based on user-defined objective functions for the internal target volume (ITV) and organs at risk (OAR). However, the radiobiological parameters of the different tumours and normal tissues are typically not taken into account during dose prescription and optimization of a treatment plan or during plan evaluation. The suitability of a treatment plan is typically decided based on dosimetric criteria such as dose-volume histograms (DVH), maximum, minimum, mean and standard deviation of the dose distribution. For a more comprehensive treatment plan evaluation, the biologically effective uniform dose (D) is applied together with the complication-free tumour control probability (P(+)). Its utilization is demonstrated using three clinical cases that were planned with two different forms of IMRT. In this study, three different cancer types at different anatomical sites were investigated: head and neck, lung and prostate cancers. For each cancer type, a linac MLC-based step-and-shoot IMRT plan and a HT plan were developed. The MLC-based IMRT treatment plans were developed on the Philips treatment-planning platform, using the Pinnacle 7.6 software release. For the tomotherapy HiArt plans, the dedicated tomotherapy treatment planning station was used, running version 2.1.2. By using D as the common prescription point of the treatment plans and plotting the tissue response probabilities versus D for a range of prescription doses, a number of plan trials can be compared based on radiobiological measures. The applied plan evaluation method shows that in the head and neck cancer case the HT treatment gives better results than MLC-based IMRT in terms of expected clinical outcome P(+) of 62.2% and 46.0%, D to the ITV of 72.3 Gy and 70.7 Gy, respectively). In the lung cancer and prostate cancer cases, the MLC-based IMRT plans are better over the clinically useful dose prescription range. For the lung cancer case, the HT and MLC-based IMRT plans give a P(+) of 66.9% and 72.9%, D to the ITV of 64.0 Gy and 66.9 Gy, respectively. Similarly, for the prostate cancer case, the two radiation modalities give a P(+) of 68.7% and 72.2%, D to the ITV of 86.0 Gy and 85.9 Gy, respectively. If a higher risk of complications (higher than 5%) could be allowed, the complication-free tumour control could increase by over 40%, 2% and 30% compared to the initial dose prescription for the three cancer cases, respectively. Both MLC-based IMRT and HT can encompass the often-large ITV required while they minimize the volume of the organs at risk receiving high doses. Radiobiological evaluation of treatment plans may provide an improved correlation of the delivered treatment with the clinical outcome by taking into account the dose-response characteristics of the irradiated targets and normal tissues. There may exist clinical cases, which may look dosimetrically similar but in radiobiological terms may be quite different. In such situations, traditional dose-based evaluation tools can be complemented by the use of P(+)--D diagrams to effectively evaluate and compare treatment plans.
|
|
