DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Linear Accelerator and Helical Tomotherapy Plans for Glioblastoma Multiforme Patients

  • Koca, Timur (Regional Training and Research Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology) ;
  • Basaran, Hamit (Regional Training and Research Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology) ;
  • Sezen, Duygu (Regional Training and Research Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology) ;
  • Karaca, Sibel (Regional Training and Research Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology) ;
  • Ors, Yasemin (Regional Training and Research Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology) ;
  • Arslan, Deniz (Department of Medical Oncology) ;
  • Aydin, Aysen (Department Radiation Oncology, Public Hospital)
  • Published : 2014.10.11

Abstract

Background: Despite advances in radiotherapy, overall survival of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) patients is still poor. Moreover dosimetrical analyses with these newer treatment methods are insufficient. The current study is aimed to compare intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) linear accelerator (linac) and helical tomotherapy (HT) treatment plans for patients with prognostic aggressive brain tumors. Material and Methods: A total of 20 GBM patient plans were prospectively evaluated in both linac and HT planning systems. Plans are compared with respect to homogenity index, conformity index and organs at risk (OAR) sparing effects of the treatments. Results: Both treatment plans provided good results that can be applied to GBM patients but it was concluded that if the critical organs with relatively lower dose constraints are closer to the target region, HT for radiotherapeutical application could be preferred. Conclusion: Tomotherapy plans were superior to linear accelerator plans from the aspect of OAR sparing with slightly broader low dose ranges over the healthy tissues. In case a clinic has both of these IMRT systems, employment of HT is recommended based on the observed results and future re-irradiation strategies must be considered.

References

  1. Blasi O, Fontenot JD, Fields RS, et al (2011). Preliminary comparison of helical tomotherapy and mixed beams of unmodulated electrons and intensity modulated radiation therapy for treating superficial cancers of the parotid gland and nasal cavity. Radiat Oncol, 6, 178. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-6-178
  2. Al-Mohammed HI (2011). Patient specification quality assurance for glioblastoma multiforme brain tumors treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy. Int J Med Sci, 8, 461-6.
  3. Arnfield MR, Siebers JV, Kim JO, et al (2000). A method for determining multileaf collimator transmission and scatter for dynamic intensity modulated radiotherapy. Med Phys, 27, 2231-41. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1312190
  4. Cao D, Holmes TW, Afghan MK, et al (2007). Comparison of plan quality provided by intensity-modulated arc therapy and helical tomotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 69, 240-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.04.073
  5. Chen YD, Feng J, Fang T, et al (2013). Effect of intensitymodulated radiotherapy versus three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy on clinical outcomes in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Chin Med J, 126, 2320-4.
  6. Chen DQ, Yao DX, Zhao HY, et al (2012). DNA repair gene ERCC1 and XPD polymorphisms predict glioma susceptibility and prognosis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 2791-4. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.6.2791
  7. Doroudchi M, Pishe ZG, Malekzadeh M, et al (2013). Elevated serum IL-17A but not IL-6 in glioma versus meningioma and schwannoma. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 5225-30. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.9.5225
  8. Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A, et al (1991). Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 15, 109-22.
  9. Gupta T, Wadasadawala T, Master Z, et al (2012). Encouraging early clinical outcomes with helical tomotherapy-based image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy for residual, recurrent, and/or progressive benign/low-grade intracranial tumors: a comprehensive evaluation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 82, 756-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.12.044
  10. Floyd NS, Woo SY, Teh BS, et al (2004). Hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy for primary glioblastoma multiforme. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 58, 721-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(03)01623-7
  11. Fuller CD, Choi M, Forthuber B, et al (2007) Wang SJ, Rajagiriyil N, Salter BJ, Fuss M: Standard fractionation intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of primary and recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Radiat Oncol, 2, 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-2-26
  12. Ge YF, Sun J, Jin CJ, et al(2013). AntagomiR-27a targets FOXO3a in glioblastoma and suppresses U87 cell growth in vitro and in vivo. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 963-8. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.2.963
  13. Hermanto U, Frija EK, Lii MJ, et al (2007).Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and conventional three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for high-grade gliomas: does IMRT increase the integral dose to normal brain? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 15, 1135-44.
  14. ICRU report N0 83: Prescribing, recording, and reporting photon-beam intensity modulated radiation therapy. J ICRU DOI: 10.1093/jicru/ndq002. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru/ndq002
  15. Kehwar TS (2005). Analytical approach to estimate normal tissue complication probability using best fit of normal tissue tolerance doses into the NTCP equation of the linear quadratic model. J Cancer Res Ther, 1, 168-79. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1482.19597
  16. Khoo VS, Oldham M, Adams EJ, et al (1999). Comparison of intensity-modulated tomotherapy with stereotactically guided conformal radiotherapy for brain tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 45, 415-25.
  17. Koga T, Saito N(2012). Efficacy and limitations of stereotactic radiosurgery in the treatment of glioblastoma. Neurol Med Chir, 52, 548-552. https://doi.org/10.2176/nmc.52.548
  18. MacDonald SM, Ahmad S, Kachris S, et al (2007). Intensity modulated radiation therapy versus three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for the treatment of high grade glioma: a dosimetric comparison. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 19, 47-60.
  19. Kong M, Hong SE (2014). Clinical outcome of helical tomotherapy for inoperable non-small cell lung cancer: The Kyung Hee University Medical Center Experience. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 5225-30.
  20. Leclerc M, Maingon P, Hamoir M, et al (2013). A dose escalation study with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in T2N0, T2N1, T3N0 squamous cell carcinomas (SCC) of the oropharynx, larynx and hypopharynx using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) approach. Radiother Oncol, 106, 333-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2013.03.002
  21. Lian J, Mackenzie M, Joseph K, et al (2008). Assessment of extended-field radiotherapy for stage IIIC endometrial cancer using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and helical tomotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 70, 935-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.10.021
  22. Mavroidis P, Ferreira BC, Shi C, et al (2007). Treatment plan comparison between helical tomotherapy and MLC-based IMRT using radiobiological measures. Phys Med Biol, 52, 3817-36. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/52/13/011
  23. Miwa K, Matsuo M, Shinoda J, et al (2008). Simultaneous integrated boost technique by helical tomotherapy for the treatment of glioblastoma multiforme with 11C-methionine PET: report of three cases. J Neurooncol, 87, 333-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-008-9519-3
  24. Murthy V, Master Z, Gupta T, et al (2010). Helical tomotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: dosimetric comparison with linear accelerator-based step-and-shoot IMRT. J Cancer Res Ther, 6, 194-8. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1482.65245
  25. Narayana A, Yamada J, Berry S, et al (2006). Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in high-grade gliomas: clinical and dosimetric results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 64, 892-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.05.067
  26. Pashaki AS, Hamed EA, Mohamadian K, et al(2014). Efficacy of high dose radiotherapy in post-operative treatment of glioblastoma multiform - a single institution report. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 4165-8.
  27. Servagi Vernat S, Ali D, Puyraveau M, et al (2014). Is IMAT the ultimate evolution of conformal radiotherapy? Dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for oropharyngeal cancer in a planning study. Phys Med, 30, 280-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2013.07.128
  28. Sheng K, Molloy JA, Larner JM, et al (2007). A dosimetric comparison of non-coplanar IMRT versus Helical Tomotherapy for nasal cavity and paranasal sinus cancer. Radiother Oncol, 82, 174-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2007.01.008
  29. Shi C, Penagaricano J, Papanikolaou N (2008). Comparison of IMRT treatment plans between linac and helical tomotherapy based on integral dose and inhomogeneity index. Med Dosim, 33, 215-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2007.11.001
  30. Thilmann C, Zabel A, Grosser KH, et al (2001). Intensitymodulated radiotherapy with an integrated boost to the macroscopic tumor volume in the treatment of high-grade gliomas. Int J Cancer, 20, 341-9.
  31. Williams PC(2003). IMRT: delivery techniques and quality assurance. Br J Radiol, 76, 766-76. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/12907222
  32. Zach L, Stall B, Ning H, et al (2009). A dosimetric comparison of four treatment planning methods for high grade glioma. Radiat Oncol, 4, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-4-45
  33. Zhu WG, Zhou K, Yu CH, et al(2012). Efficacy analysis of simplified intensity-modulated radiotherapy with high or conventional dose and concurrent chemotherapy for patients with neck and upper thoracic esophageal carcinoma. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 803-7. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.3.803

Cited by

  1. Prognostic Value of MGMT Promoter Methylation and TP53 Mutation in Glioblastomas Depends on IDH1 Mutation vol.15, pp.24, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.24.10893
  2. status for predicting the survival outcome of glioblastoma patients vol.18, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nov239
  3. ROCOCO trial pp.1651-226X, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2018.1529424
  4. Glioblastoma Treatments: An Account of Recent Industrial Developments vol.9, pp.1663-9812, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.00879
  5. Comparing Nasal Cavity Radiotherapy Using Electron, Photon, Proton and Photon-Electron Beams vol.09, pp.03, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4236/jct.2018.93022