3 research outputs found

    Intensity modulated radiation therapy planning for patients with a metal hip prosthesis based on class solutions

    No full text
    Purpose: With the aging of the population, an increasing number of patients with metallic hip implants are referred for radiotherapy treatment. Class solutions for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment planning are generally not applicable for these patients due to the required avoidance of dose delivery through prostheses. In this work a new approach for IMRT planning is presented, allowing the use of a default beam setup. Methods and Materials: For IMRT planning, Monaco (Elekta; CMS Software, Maryland Heights, MO) was used. In addition to the target and organs at risk, so-called prosthesis avoidance volumes (PAVs) were delineated in the beam's eye view projection for beams in which the prosthesis was partially in front of the target. By putting strict constraints on these virtual organs at risk, entrance dose delivery through a prosthesis is avoided while exit dose delivery is allowed. In this way, uncertainties in the dose delivery to the target and organs at risk, as derived by the treatment planning system, are largely minimized. To show the advantages of this IMRT-PAV technique, for 2 prostate cancer patients, 1 with bilateral and the other with unilateral metallic hip prostheses, obtained IMRT plans were compared with conventional IMRT plans using a prosthesis-avoiding beam setup. Results: For both IMRT techniques a similar planning target volume coverage was achieved, but with the IMRT-PAV technique the mean doses to the bladder and the rectum were reduced by up to 25%. While the IMRT-PAV technique required more time for delineation, the time for treatment planning reduced because the default beam setup could be applied. The number of segments needed for dose delivery was comparable for both techniques. Conclusions: With the new IMRT-PAV technique IMRT class solutions can safely be applied for cancer patients with metallic hip prostheses, generally yielding a reduced dose delivery to organs at risk or improved target coverage.</p

    Intraoperative validation of CT-based lymph nodal levels, sublevels IIa and IIb: is it of clinical relevance in selective radiation therapy?

    No full text
    PURPOSE: The objectives of this study are to discuss the intraoperative validation of CT-based boundaries of lymph nodal levels in the neck, and in particular the clinical relevance of the delineation of sublevels IIa and IIb in case of selective radiation therapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: To validate the radiologically defined level contours, clips were positioned intraoperatively at the level boundaries defined by surgical anatomy. In 10 consecutive patients, clips were placed, at the time of a neck dissection being performed, at the most cranial border of the neck. Anterior-posterior and lateral X-ray films were obtained intraoperatively. Next, in 3 patients, neck levels were contoured on preoperative contrast-enhanced CT scans according to the international consensus guidelines. From each of these 3 patients, an intraoperative CT scan was also obtained, with clips placed at the surgical-anatomy-based level boundaries. The preoperative (CT-based) and intraoperative (surgery-defined) CT scans were matched. RESULTS: Clips placed at the most cranial part of the neck lined up at the caudal part of the transverse process of the cervical vertebra C-I. The posterior border of surgical level IIa (spinal accessory nerve [SAN]) did not match with the posterior border of CT-based level IIa (internal jugular vein [IJV]). Other surgical boundaries and CT-based contours were in good agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The cranial border of the neck, i.e., the cranial border of level IIa/IIb, corresponds to the caudal edge of the lateral process of C-I. Except for the posterior border between level IIa and level IIb, a perfect match was observed between the other surgical-clip-identified levels II-V boundaries (surgical-anatomy) and the CT-based delineation contours. It is argued that (1) because of the parotid gland overlapping part of level II, and (2) the frequent infestation of occult metastatic cells in the lymph channels around the IJV, the division of level II into radiologic sublevels IIa and IIb may not be relevant. Sparing of, for example, the ipsilateral parotid gland in selective RT can even be a treacherous undertaking with respect to regional tumor control. In contrast, the surgeon's reasoning for preserving the surgical sublevel IIb is that the morbidity associated with dissection of the supraspinal accessory nerve compartment of level II is reduced, whereas there is evidence from the surgical literature that no extra risk for regional tumor control is observed. Therefore, in selective neck dissections, the division into surgical sublevels IIa/IIb makes sense

    EARLY HYPERBARIC OXYGEN THERAPY FOR REDUCING RADIOTHERAPY SIDE EFFECTS: EARLY RESULTS OF A RANDOMIZED TRIAL IN OROPHARYNGEAL AND NASOPHARYNGEAL CANCER

    No full text
    Purpose: Comparison of quality of life (QoL) and side effects in a randomized trial for early hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) after radiotherapy (RT). Methods and Materials: From 2006, 19 patients with tumor originating from the tonsillar fossa and/or soft palate (15), base of tongue (1), and nasopharynx (3) were randomized to receive HBOT or not. HBOT consisted of 30 sessions at 2.5 ATA (15 msw) with oxygen breathing for 90 min daily, 5 days per week, applied shortly after the RT treatment was completed. As of 2005, all patients received validated questionnaires (i.e., the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ Head and Neck Cancer Module (H&N35), Performance Status Scale): before treatment; at the start of RT treatment; after 46 Gy; at the end of RT treatment; and 2, 4, and 6 weeks and 3, 6, 12, and 18 months after follow-up. Results: On all QoL items, better scores were obtained in patients treated with hyperbaric oxygen. The difference between HBOT vs. non-HBOT was significant for all parameters: EORTC H&N35 Swallowing (p = 0.011), EORTC H&N35 Dry Mouth (p = 0.009), EORTC H&N35 Sticky Saliva (p = 0.01), PSS Eating in Public (p 0.027), and Pain in Mouth (visual analogue scale; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Patients randomized for receiving hyperbaric oxygen after the RT had better QoL scores for swallowing, sticky saliva, xerostomia, and pain in mouth. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc
    corecore