Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Dose Planning Study of Target Volume Coverage with Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Penang General Hospital Experience

  • Vincent Phua, Chee Ee (Clinical Oncology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya) ;
  • Tan, Boon Seang (Department of Clinical Oncology and Radiotherapy, Penang General Hospital) ;
  • Tan, Ai Lian (Department of Clinical Oncology and Radiotherapy, Penang General Hospital) ;
  • Eng, Kae Yann (Department of Clinical Oncology and Radiotherapy, Pantai Hospital Penang) ;
  • Ng, Bong Seng (Department of Clinical Oncology and Radiotherapy, Pantai Hospital Penang) ;
  • Ung, Ngie Min (Clinical Oncology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya)
  • Published : 2013.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: To compare the dosimetric coverage of target volumes and organs at risk in the radical treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) between intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). Materials and Methods: Data from 10 consecutive patients treated with IMRT from June-October 2011 in Penang General Hospital were collected retrospectively for analysis. For each patient, dose volume histograms were generated for both the IMRT and 3DCRT plans using a total dose of 70Gy. Comparison of the plans was accomplished by comparing the target volume coverage (5 measures) and sparing of organs at risk (17 organs) for each patient using both IMRT and 3DCRT. The means of each comparison target volume coverage measures and organs at risk measures were obtained and tested for statistical significance using the paired Student t-test. Results: All 5 measures for target volume coverage showed marked dosimetric superiority of IMRT over 3DCRT. V70 and V66.5 for PTV70 showed an absolute improvement of 39.3% and 24.1% respectively. V59.4 and V56.4 for PTV59.4 showed advantages of 18.4% and 16.4%. Moreover, the mean PTV70 dose revealed a 5.1 Gy higher dose with IMRT. Only 4 out of 17 organs at risk showed statistically significant difference in their means which were clinically meaningful between the IMRT and 3DCRT techniques. IMRT was superior in sparing the spinal cord (less 5.8Gy), V30 of right parotid (less 14.3%) and V30 of the left parotid (less 13.1%). The V55 of the left cochlea was lower with 3DCRT (less 44.3%). Conclusions: IMRT is superior to 3DCRT due to its dosimetric advantage in target volume coverage while delivering acceptable doses to organs at risk. A total dose of 70Gy with IMRT should be considered as a standard of care for radical treatment of NPC.

Keywords

References

  1. Baujat B, Bourhis J, Chan AT, et al (2006). Chemotherapy in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: An individual patient data meta-analysis of eight randomized trials and 1753 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phy, 64, 47-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.06.037
  2. Chao KSC, Deasy JO, Markman J, et al (2001). A prospective study of salivary function sparing in patients with head and neck cancers receiving intensity-modulated or three-dimensional radiation therapy: Initial results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 49, 907-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(00)01441-3
  3. Cheng JC, Low D (2001). Comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment techniques for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 96, 126-31.
  4. Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A, et al (1991). Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 21, 109-22.
  5. Hunt MA, Zelefsky M, Wolden S, et al (2001). Treatment planning and delivery of intensity modulated radiation therapy for primary nasopharynx cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 49, 623-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(00)01389-4
  6. Kam KM, Chau MC, Suen J, et al (2003). Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: dosimetric advantage over conventional plans and feasibility of dose escalation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 56, 145-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(03)00075-0
  7. Kristensen CA, Kjaer-Kristoffersen F, Sapru W, et al (2007). Nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Treatment planning with IMRT and 3D conformal radiotherapy. Acta Oncologica, 46, 214-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02841860600635862
  8. Kwong LW, Sham ST, Leung HT, et al (2006). Preliminary results of radiation dose escalation for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 64, 374-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.07.968
  9. Langendijk JA, Leemans CR, Buter J, et al (2004). The additional value of chemotherapy to radiotherapy in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a meta-analysis of the published literature. J Clin Oncol, 22, 4604-12. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.10.074
  10. Law CK, Mang O (2007). Cancer incidence in Hong Kong. Med Bull, 12, 18-21.
  11. Lee N, Xia P, Quivey JM, et al (2002). Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: An update of the UCSF experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 53, 12-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02724-4
  12. Lin SJ, Pan JJ, Han L, et al (2009). Nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with reduced volume intensity-modulated radiation therapy: report on the 3-year outcome of a prospective series. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol PhyS, 75, 1071-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.12.015
  13. Marks LB, Yorke ED, Jackson A, et al (2010). Use of normal tissue complication probablity models in the clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 76, 10-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1754
  14. Malaysian Cancer Statistics-Data and Figure Peninsular Malaysia (2006). National Cancer Registry, Ministry of Health Malaysia.
  15. Ng WT, Lee CH, Hung WM, et al (2011). Clinical outcomes and patterns of failure after intensity-modulated radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 79, 420-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.11.024
  16. Phua CE, Tan BS, Yong TK, et al (2011). Retrospective analysis of results of treatment for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in Penang general hospital from 2001-2005. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 3197-200.
  17. Prasad U, Pua KC (2000). Nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a delay in diagnosis. Med J Malaysia, 55, 230-5.
  18. Pua KC, Khoo SB, Yap YY, et al( 2008). Nasopharyngeal carcinoma database. Med J Malaysia, 63, 59-62.
  19. Waldron J, Tin MM, Keller A, et al (2003). Limitations of conventional two dimensional radiation therapy planning in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Radiother Oncol, 68, 153-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(02)00370-5
  20. Wang JH, Shi M, Hsia YS, et al (2012). Failure patterns and survival in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with intensity modulated radiation in Northwest China: a pilot study. Radiation Oncology, 7, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-7-2

Cited by

  1. Prognostic Factors on Overall Survival of Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma vol.15, pp.7, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.7.3169
  2. Reirradiation with Robotic Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Recurrent Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma vol.15, pp.8, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.8.3561
  3. Dosimetric Evaluation of a Simple Planning Technique for Improving Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Nasopharyngeal Cancer vol.10, pp.7, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129461
  4. Advances and Challenges in Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma vol.16, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.5.1687
  5. Acute Toxicity in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Patients Treated with IMRT/VMAT vol.16, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.5.1897
  6. Recommendations for Updating T and N Staging Systems for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma in the Era of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy vol.11, pp.12, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168470