7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy in hippocampal avoidance whole‐brain radiotherapy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          This study aimed to discuss the dosimetric advantages of helical tomotherapy (HT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technology in hippocampal avoidance whole‐brain radiotherapy and provide references for clinical selection of ideal radiotherapy technology.

          Methods

          A total of 20 patients with hippocampal avoidance whole‐brain radiotherapy were chosen randomly. Computed tomography (CT) and MRI scanning images were input into the treatment planning system (TPS). After the CT and enhanced magnetic resonance T1 weighted images were fused and registered, the same radiation therapy physician was invited to outline the tumor target volume. PTV‐HS refers to the whole brain subtracted by 5 mm outward expansion of the hippocampus (HP). The prescribed dose was 30 Gy/10 fractions. HT and VMAT plans were designed for each patient in accordance with PTV. Under the premise that the 95% isodose curve covers the PTV, dose–volume histogram was applied to evaluate the PTV, conformal index (CI), heterogeneity index (HI), maximum dose (Dmax), mean dose (Dmean), minimum dose (Dmin) and absorbed doses of organs at risk (OARs) in HT and VMAT plans. Paired t‐test was performed to compare the differences between two radiation therapy plans, and p  <  0.05 was considered statistically significant.

          Results

          These two plans had no significant difference in PTV‐HS (max, min, and mean). However, the HI and CI of the HT plan were significantly better than those of the VMAT plan, showing statistically significant difference ( p < 0.05). The HT plan was significantly superior to the VMAT plan in terms of the Dmax, Dmin, and Dmean of HP, left and right eye lens, left and right eye, and spinal cord, showing statistically significant difference ( p < 0.05). The HT plan was also better than the VMAT plan in terms of the Dmax of the left optic nerve. However, the two plans showed no obvious differences in terms of the absorbed doses of the right optic nerve and brainstem, without statistical significance.

          Conclusions

          Compared with the VMAT plan of hippocampal avoidance, HT technology has significant dosimetric advantages. HT plans significantly decreased the radiation dose and radiation volume of OARs surrounding the target area (e.g., surrounding eye lens and eye, especially hippocampal avoidance area) while increasing the CI and HI of PTV dose in whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) greatly, thus enabling the decrease in the incidence rate of radioactive nerve function impairment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Neurocognition in patients with brain metastases treated with radiosurgery or radiosurgery plus whole-brain irradiation: a randomised controlled trial.

          It is unclear whether the benefit of adding whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) to stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for the control of brain-tumours outweighs the potential neurocognitive risks. We proposed that the learning and memory functions of patients who undergo SRS plus WBRT are worse than those of patients who undergo SRS alone. We did a randomised controlled trial to test our prediction. Patients with one to three newly diagnosed brain metastases were randomly assigned using a standard permutated block algorithm with random block sizes to SRS plus WBRT or SRS alone from Jan 2, 2001, to Sept 14, 2007. Patients were stratified by recursive partitioning analysis class, number of brain metastases, and radioresistant histology. The randomisation sequence was masked until assignation, at which point both clinicians and patients were made aware of the treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was neurocognitive function: objectively measured as a significant deterioration (5-point drop compared with baseline) in Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) total recall at 4 months. An independent data monitoring committee monitored the trial using Bayesian statistical methods. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00548756. After 58 patients were recruited (n=30 in the SRS alone group, n=28 in the SRS plus WBRT group), the trial was stopped by the data monitoring committee according to early stopping rules on the basis that there was a high probability (96%) that patients randomly assigned to receive SRS plus WBRT were significantly more likely to show a decline in learning and memory function (mean posterior probability of decline 52%) at 4 months than patients assigned to receive SRS alone (mean posterior probability of decline 24%). At 4 months there were four deaths (13%) in the group that received SRS alone, and eight deaths (29%) in the group that received SRS plus WBRT. 73% of patients in the SRS plus WBRT group were free from CNS recurrence at 1 year, compared with 27% of patients who received SRS alone (p=0.0003). In the SRS plus WBRT group, one case of grade 3 toxicity (seizures, motor neuropathy, depressed level of consciousness) was attributed to radiation treatment. In the group that received SRS, one case of grade 3 toxicity (aphasia) was attributed to radiation treatment. Two cases of grade 4 toxicity in the group that received SRS alone were diagnosed as radiation necrosis. Patients treated with SRS plus WBRT were at a greater risk of a significant decline in learning and memory function by 4 months compared with the group that received SRS alone. Initial treatment with a combination of SRS and close clinical monitoring is recommended as the preferred treatment strategy to better preserve learning and memory in patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Adjuvant whole-brain radiotherapy versus observation after radiosurgery or surgical resection of one to three cerebral metastases: results of the EORTC 22952-26001 study.

            This European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase III trial assesses whether adjuvant whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) increases the duration of functional independence after surgery or radiosurgery of brain metastases. Patients with one to three brain metastases of solid tumors (small-cell lung cancer excluded) with stable systemic disease or asymptomatic primary tumors and WHO performance status (PS) of 0 to 2 were treated with complete surgery or radiosurgery and randomly assigned to adjuvant WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions) or observation (OBS). The primary end point was time to WHO PS deterioration to more than 2. Of 359 patients, 199 underwent radiosurgery, and 160 underwent surgery. In the radiosurgery group, 100 patients were allocated to OBS, and 99 were allocated to WBRT. After surgery, 79 patients were allocated to OBS, and 81 were allocated to adjuvant WBRT. The median time to WHO PS more than 2 was 10.0 months (95% CI, 8.1 to 11.7 months) after OBS and 9.5 months (95% CI, 7.8 to 11.9 months) after WBRT (P = .71). Overall survival was similar in the WBRT and OBS arms (median, 10.9 v 10.7 months, respectively; P = .89). WBRT reduced the 2-year relapse rate both at initial sites (surgery: 59% to 27%, P < .001; radiosurgery: 31% to 19%, P = .040) and at new sites (surgery: 42% to 23%, P = .008; radiosurgery: 48% to 33%, P = .023). Salvage therapies were used more frequently after OBS than after WBRT. Intracranial progression caused death in 78 (44%) of 179 patients in the OBS arm and in 50 (28%) of 180 patients in the WBRT arm. After radiosurgery or surgery of a limited number of brain metastases, adjuvant WBRT reduces intracranial relapses and neurologic deaths but fails to improve the duration of functional independence and overall survival.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prophylactic cranial irradiation in extensive small-cell lung cancer.

              We conducted a randomized trial of prophylactic cranial irradiation in patients with extensive small-cell lung cancer who had had a response to chemotherapy. Patients between the ages of 18 and 75 years with extensive small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to undergo prophylactic cranial irradiation (irradiation group) or receive no further therapy (control group). The primary end point was the time to symptomatic brain metastases. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the brain was performed when any predefined key symptom suggestive of brain metastases was present. The two groups (each with 143 patients) were well balanced regarding baseline characteristics. Patients in the irradiation group had a lower risk of symptomatic brain metastases (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.44; P<0.001). The cumulative risk of brain metastases within 1 year was 14.6% in the irradiation group (95% CI, 8.3 to 20.9) and 40.4% in the control group (95% CI, 32.1 to 48.6). Irradiation was associated with an increase in median disease-free survival from 12.0 weeks to 14.7 weeks and in median overall survival from 5.4 months to 6.7 months after randomization. The 1-year survival rate was 27.1% (95% CI, 19.4 to 35.5) in the irradiation group and 13.3% (95% CI, 8.1 to 19.9) in the control group. Irradiation had side effects but did not have a clinically significant effect on global health status. Prophylactic cranial irradiation reduces the incidence of symptomatic brain metastases and prolongs disease-free and overall survival. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00016211 [ClinicalTrials.gov].). Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                cumthubo@163.com
                haowenpang@foxmail.com
                Journal
                J Appl Clin Med Phys
                J Appl Clin Med Phys
                10.1002/(ISSN)1526-9914
                ACM2
                Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1526-9914
                27 November 2023
                January 2024
                : 25
                : 1 ( doiID: 10.1002/acm2.v25.1 )
                : e14218
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Radiotherapy Jiangxi Cancer Hospital The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang Medical College NHCKey Laboratory of Personalized Diagnosis and Treatment of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Nanchang China
                [ 2 ] Department of Oncology, The third people's hospital of Jingdezhen The third people's hospital of Jingdezhen affiliated to Nanchang Medical College Jingdezhen China
                [ 3 ] Key Laboratory of Nondestructive Testing of Ministry of Education Nanchang HangKong University Nanchang China
                [ 4 ] Department of Oncology The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University Sichuan China
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Dr. Bo Hu, Key Laboratory of Nondestructive Testing of Ministry of Education, Nanchang Hangkong University, Nanchang 330063, China.

                Email: cumthubo@ 123456163.com

                Dr. Hao‐wen Pang, Department of Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou 646000, China.

                Email: haowenpang@ 123456foxmail.com

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4877-9343
                Article
                ACM214218
                10.1002/acm2.14218
                10795432
                38013656
                98f963a0-77c7-4ddd-8fe6-fadcd17e5735
                © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 06 September 2023
                : 27 July 2023
                : 12 November 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 2, Pages: 7, Words: 4978
                Funding
                Funded by: The Open Fund for Scientific Research of Jiangxi Cancer Hospital
                Award ID: 2021J15
                Funded by: The Gulin County People's Hospital‐The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University Science and Technology Strategic Cooperation Project
                Award ID: 2022GLXNYDFY05
                Funded by: The Sichuan Provincial Medical Research Project Plan
                Award ID: S21004
                Categories
                Radiation Oncology Physics
                Radiation Oncology Physics
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                January 2024
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.3.6 mode:remove_FC converted:18.01.2024

                dosimetry,helical tomotherapy,hippocampal avoidance,volumetric modulated arc therapy,wbrt

                Comments

                Comment on this article