BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
British Journal of Radiology (2006) 79, 497-503
© 2006 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/43441736
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Milano, M T
Right arrow Articles by Jani, A B
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Milano, M T
Right arrow Articles by Jani, A B

Full paper

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the treatment of gastric cancer: early clinical outcome and dosimetric comparison with conventional techniques

M T Milano, MD, PhD1,2, M C Garofalo, MD3, S J Chmura, MD, PhD1, K Farrey, MS1, C Rash, CMD1, R Heimann, MD, PhD4 and A B Jani, MD1

1 Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14642, 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD 21201, 4 Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05401, USA

Correspondence: Ashesh B Jani, University of Chicago, Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, MC 9006, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and toxicity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of gastric cancer. Seven patients with gastric cancer were treated with IMRT. Six patients (all Stage III) received post-operative chemoradiotherapy with concurrent 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin. One received planned pre-operative radiation, though did not proceed to surgery. All patients were planned to receive 50.4 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions. IMRT planning was compared with opposed anterior-posterior: posterior-anterior (AP/PA) and 3-field conventional three-dimensional plans. When compared with either AP/PA or 3-field plans, IMRT significantly reduced the volume exceeding the threshold dose of the liver and at least one kidney. Target coverage with IMRT was excellent, with 98±1% of the target receiving ≥100% of the dose. Compared with AP/PA and 3-field plans, IMRT plans had a greater percentage of target receiving the prescribed dose, but also a greater volume receiving >110% of the dose. IMRT was well tolerated; no patients developed acute gastrointestinal toxicity greater than grade 2. All seven experienced grade 2 nausea, three had grade 2 diarrhoea and two had grade 2 oesophagitis. Weight loss ranged from 0–12% (mean 6.1% and median 5.8%). IMRT in the treatment of gastric malignancies reduces the mean and above threshold doses to critical normal tissues. In an initial cohort of seven patients, 50.4 Gy delivered by IMRT is well tolerated and safe.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2006 by the British Institute of Radiology.