Is there a "mucosa-sparing" benefit of IMRT for head-and-neck cancer?

Giuseppe Sanguineti, Eugene J. Endres, Brandon G. Gunn, Brent Parker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

50 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate whether intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) allows more mucosal sparing than standard three-field technique (3FT) radiotherapy for early oropharyngeal cancer. Methods and Materials: Whole-field IMRT plans were generated for 5 patients with early-stage oropharyngeal cancer according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0022 (66 Gy/30 fractions/6 weeks) guidelines with and without a dose objective on the portion of mucosa not overlapping any PTV. 3FT plans were also generated for the same 5 patients with two fractionation schedules: conventional fractionation (CF) to 70 Gy/35 fractions/7 weeks and concomitant boost (CB) to 72 Gy/40 fractions/6 weeks. Cumulative dose volume histograms (DVHs) of the overall mucosal volume (as per in-house definition) from all trials were compared after transformation into the linear quadratic equivalent dose at 2 Gy per fraction with a time factor correction. Results: Compared with IMRT without dose objective on the mucosa, a 30-Gy maximum dose objective on the mucosa allows ∼20% and ∼12% mean absolute reduction in the percentage of mucosa volume exposed to a dose equivalent to 30 Gy (p < 0.01) and 70 Gy (p < 0.01) at 2 Gy in 3 and 7 weeks, respectively, without detrimental effect on the coverage of other regions of interest. Without mucosal dose objective, IMRT is associated with a larger amount of mucosa exposed to clinically relevant doses compared with both concomitant boost and conventional fractionation; however, if a dose objective is placed, the reverse is true, with up to ∼30% reduction in the volume of the mucosa in the high-dose region compared with both concomitant boost and conventional fractionation (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy can be potentially provide more mucosal sparing than traditional approaches.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)931-938
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Volume66
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2006

Fingerprint

Head and Neck Neoplasms
radiation therapy
Mucous Membrane
Radiotherapy
cancer
dosage
Oropharyngeal Neoplasms
fractionation
acceleration (physics)
Radiation Oncology
Appointments and Schedules
schedules
Guidelines
histograms

Keywords

  • Acute mucositis
  • Altered fractionation
  • IMRT

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiation

Cite this

Is there a "mucosa-sparing" benefit of IMRT for head-and-neck cancer? / Sanguineti, Giuseppe; Endres, Eugene J.; Gunn, Brandon G.; Parker, Brent.

In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, Vol. 66, No. 3, 01.11.2006, p. 931-938.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sanguineti, Giuseppe ; Endres, Eugene J. ; Gunn, Brandon G. ; Parker, Brent. / Is there a "mucosa-sparing" benefit of IMRT for head-and-neck cancer?. In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2006 ; Vol. 66, No. 3. pp. 931-938.
@article{056b6a976d6d42e89c119b198b69220a,
title = "Is there a {"}mucosa-sparing{"} benefit of IMRT for head-and-neck cancer?",
abstract = "Purpose: To investigate whether intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) allows more mucosal sparing than standard three-field technique (3FT) radiotherapy for early oropharyngeal cancer. Methods and Materials: Whole-field IMRT plans were generated for 5 patients with early-stage oropharyngeal cancer according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0022 (66 Gy/30 fractions/6 weeks) guidelines with and without a dose objective on the portion of mucosa not overlapping any PTV. 3FT plans were also generated for the same 5 patients with two fractionation schedules: conventional fractionation (CF) to 70 Gy/35 fractions/7 weeks and concomitant boost (CB) to 72 Gy/40 fractions/6 weeks. Cumulative dose volume histograms (DVHs) of the overall mucosal volume (as per in-house definition) from all trials were compared after transformation into the linear quadratic equivalent dose at 2 Gy per fraction with a time factor correction. Results: Compared with IMRT without dose objective on the mucosa, a 30-Gy maximum dose objective on the mucosa allows ∼20{\%} and ∼12{\%} mean absolute reduction in the percentage of mucosa volume exposed to a dose equivalent to 30 Gy (p < 0.01) and 70 Gy (p < 0.01) at 2 Gy in 3 and 7 weeks, respectively, without detrimental effect on the coverage of other regions of interest. Without mucosal dose objective, IMRT is associated with a larger amount of mucosa exposed to clinically relevant doses compared with both concomitant boost and conventional fractionation; however, if a dose objective is placed, the reverse is true, with up to ∼30{\%} reduction in the volume of the mucosa in the high-dose region compared with both concomitant boost and conventional fractionation (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy can be potentially provide more mucosal sparing than traditional approaches.",
keywords = "Acute mucositis, Altered fractionation, IMRT",
author = "Giuseppe Sanguineti and Endres, {Eugene J.} and Gunn, {Brandon G.} and Brent Parker",
year = "2006",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.05.060",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "66",
pages = "931--938",
journal = "International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics",
issn = "0360-3016",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is there a "mucosa-sparing" benefit of IMRT for head-and-neck cancer?

AU - Sanguineti, Giuseppe

AU - Endres, Eugene J.

AU - Gunn, Brandon G.

AU - Parker, Brent

PY - 2006/11/1

Y1 - 2006/11/1

N2 - Purpose: To investigate whether intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) allows more mucosal sparing than standard three-field technique (3FT) radiotherapy for early oropharyngeal cancer. Methods and Materials: Whole-field IMRT plans were generated for 5 patients with early-stage oropharyngeal cancer according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0022 (66 Gy/30 fractions/6 weeks) guidelines with and without a dose objective on the portion of mucosa not overlapping any PTV. 3FT plans were also generated for the same 5 patients with two fractionation schedules: conventional fractionation (CF) to 70 Gy/35 fractions/7 weeks and concomitant boost (CB) to 72 Gy/40 fractions/6 weeks. Cumulative dose volume histograms (DVHs) of the overall mucosal volume (as per in-house definition) from all trials were compared after transformation into the linear quadratic equivalent dose at 2 Gy per fraction with a time factor correction. Results: Compared with IMRT without dose objective on the mucosa, a 30-Gy maximum dose objective on the mucosa allows ∼20% and ∼12% mean absolute reduction in the percentage of mucosa volume exposed to a dose equivalent to 30 Gy (p < 0.01) and 70 Gy (p < 0.01) at 2 Gy in 3 and 7 weeks, respectively, without detrimental effect on the coverage of other regions of interest. Without mucosal dose objective, IMRT is associated with a larger amount of mucosa exposed to clinically relevant doses compared with both concomitant boost and conventional fractionation; however, if a dose objective is placed, the reverse is true, with up to ∼30% reduction in the volume of the mucosa in the high-dose region compared with both concomitant boost and conventional fractionation (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy can be potentially provide more mucosal sparing than traditional approaches.

AB - Purpose: To investigate whether intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) allows more mucosal sparing than standard three-field technique (3FT) radiotherapy for early oropharyngeal cancer. Methods and Materials: Whole-field IMRT plans were generated for 5 patients with early-stage oropharyngeal cancer according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0022 (66 Gy/30 fractions/6 weeks) guidelines with and without a dose objective on the portion of mucosa not overlapping any PTV. 3FT plans were also generated for the same 5 patients with two fractionation schedules: conventional fractionation (CF) to 70 Gy/35 fractions/7 weeks and concomitant boost (CB) to 72 Gy/40 fractions/6 weeks. Cumulative dose volume histograms (DVHs) of the overall mucosal volume (as per in-house definition) from all trials were compared after transformation into the linear quadratic equivalent dose at 2 Gy per fraction with a time factor correction. Results: Compared with IMRT without dose objective on the mucosa, a 30-Gy maximum dose objective on the mucosa allows ∼20% and ∼12% mean absolute reduction in the percentage of mucosa volume exposed to a dose equivalent to 30 Gy (p < 0.01) and 70 Gy (p < 0.01) at 2 Gy in 3 and 7 weeks, respectively, without detrimental effect on the coverage of other regions of interest. Without mucosal dose objective, IMRT is associated with a larger amount of mucosa exposed to clinically relevant doses compared with both concomitant boost and conventional fractionation; however, if a dose objective is placed, the reverse is true, with up to ∼30% reduction in the volume of the mucosa in the high-dose region compared with both concomitant boost and conventional fractionation (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy can be potentially provide more mucosal sparing than traditional approaches.

KW - Acute mucositis

KW - Altered fractionation

KW - IMRT

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748935721&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748935721&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.05.060

DO - 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.05.060

M3 - Article

C2 - 17011465

AN - SCOPUS:33748935721

VL - 66

SP - 931

EP - 938

JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

SN - 0360-3016

IS - 3

ER -