BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
First published online February 4, 2008
British Journal of Radiology (2008) 81, 397-405
© 2008 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/36110151
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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by TAHERI-KADKHODA, Z
Right arrow Articles by JOHANSSON, K-A
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by TAHERI-KADKHODA, Z
Right arrow Articles by JOHANSSON, K-A

Full paper

Superiority of intensity-modulated radiotherapy over three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a planning study

Z TAHERI-KADKHODA, MD1, N PETTERSSON, MSc2, T BJÖRK-ERIKSSON, MD, PhD1 and K-A JOHANSSON, PhD2

Departments of 1 Oncology and 2 Radiation Physics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden

Correspondence: Dr Zahra Taheri-Kadkhoda, Department of Oncology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, SE 413 45 Göteborg, Sweden. E-mail: zahra.taheri-kadkhoda{at}vgregion.se

A planning study was performed in order to investigate the potential benefits of intensity-modulated radiotherapy using a simultaneous integrated multi-target treatment technique (SIMT-IMRT) over highly optimized three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy combined with intracavitary brachytherapy (3D-CRT + IBT) for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The subjects were eight patients with Stages I–IV NPC. For each case, two sets of plans were prepared after delineation of gross tumour volumes, three planning target volumes (PTVs) and 17 organs at risk (OARs). Dose prescriptions for PTVs were 72.6 Gy, 66 Gy and 52.8 Gy in 33 fractions for SIMT-IMRT vs 72 Gy (66 Gy in 33 fractions for 3D-CRT and 3 Gy twice for IBT), 66 Gy (in 33 fractions) and 46 Gy (in 23 fractions) for 3D-CRT + IBT plans. Compared with the combined plans, SIMT-IMRT provided superior results for the primary tumour (PT) in terms of mean equivalent uniform dose (67 Gy vs 63.7 Gy, p = 0.016). IMRT plans increased the mean tumour control probability (TCP) values (both uncorrected and corrected for accelerated tumour repopulation after 28 days) for PT when compared with 3D-CRT + IBT (98% and 94.3% vs 95.8% and 89.9%, respectively, p = 0.016). Mean doses to middle/external ears, parotid glands and temporomandibular joints were significantly lower in IMRT plans. Our conclusion is that, for all stages of NPC, SIMT-IMRT was superior to highly optimized 3D-CRT + IBT in terms of tumour coverage, increased local TCP, and dose reduction to some OARs. We recommend that SIMT-IMRT should be considered as a first-line radiotherapy technique for NPC.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2008 by the British Institute of Radiology.