Iranian Journal of Medical Physics

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics

Comparison of Treatment Planning Parameters of Different Radiotherapy Techniques for Craniospinal Irradiation

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors
Brijesh Goswami 1
Rakesh Jain 2
Suresh Yadav 3
Sunil Kumar 4
Saji Oommen 4
Sapna Manocha 4
Ganesh Krishnarao Jadav 4
1 1. Department of Radiotherapy, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi-110076, India 2. Department of Physics, Shobhit Institute of Engineering & Technology, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250110, India
2 Department of Physics, Shobhit Institute of Engineering & Technology, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250110, India
3 Department of Radiotherapy, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal-462001 (M.P.), India
4 Department of Radiotherapy, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi-110076, India
10.22038/ijmp.2020.45574.1712
Abstract
Introduction: The current study aimed to compare linear accelerator-based three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (Linac-3DCRT) technique with different techniques of the Radixact-X9 for the treatment of craniospinal irradiation (CSI).
Material and Methods: Following a retrospective design, 22 CSI patients (Medulloblastoma) treated with Linac-3DCRT using the Novalis-Tx unit were selected for analysis. For each patient plan, additional sets of plans were generated using Helical, Direct-3DCRT, and Direct-intensity-modulated radiotherapy (Direct-IMRT) techniques of the Radixact-X9 unit. The dose prescription for brain planning target volume (brain PTV) and spine PTV were 36 Gy in 20 fractions and kept the same for all techniques. Planning time, patient setup time, homogeneity index (HI), and different dose-volume parameters for both PTV and organs at risk (OARs) were evaluated for comparison.
Results: The Radixact-X9-Helical technique can generate a plan in a more comparable and better manner in respect of maximum and minimum doses for most of the organs. The Radixact-X9-Helical technique resulted in better PTV homogeneity in comparison with Linac-3DCRT, Radixact-X9-Direct-3DCRT, and Radixact-X9-Direct-IMRT. The values of HI were 3.57±0.77, 17.37±1.44, 8.15±1.02, and 8.62±0.98, respectively.
Conclusion: Not only administration of the Radixact-X9-Helical treatment technique is easier, but also can generate a better homogeneous plan than other treatment techniques like 3DCRT and IMRT regarding different parameters for comparisons like dose-volume received by OARs, patient setup time, move isocenter, and many more. So it can be an integral part of the radiotherapy department, according to their clinical needs like shorter treatment time with good sparing of critical OARs.
Keywords
Three
Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy Helical Intensity
Modulated Radiotherapy Linear Accelerator Craniospinal Irradiation
Subjects
  1. Brodin NP, Munck Af Rosenschӧld P, Aznar MC, Kiil-Berthelsen A, Vogelius IR,Nilsson P, et al. Radiobiological risk estimates of adverse events and secondary cancer for proton and photon radiation therapy of pediatric medulloblastoma. Acta Oncol. 2011; 50(6):806–16.
  2. Myers PA, Mavroidis P, Papanikolaou N, Stathakis S. Comparing conformal, arc radiotherapy and helical tomotherapy in craniospinal irradiation planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014; 15(5):4724.
  3. Peñagaricano J, Moros E, Corry P, Saylors R, Ratanatharathorn V.  Pediatric craniospinal axis irradiation with helical tomotherapy: Patient outcome and lack of acute pulmonary toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 75(4):1155-61.
  4. Gajjar A, Hernan R, Kocak M, Fuller C, Lee Y, McKinnon PJ, et al. Clinical, histopathologic, and molecular markers of prognosis: Toward a new disease risk stratification system for medulloblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22(6):984-93.
  5. Packer RJ, Gajjar A, Vezina G, Rorke-Adams L, Burger PC, Robertson PL, et al. Phase III study of craniospinal radiation therapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed average-risk medulloblastoma. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24(25):4202-8.
  6. Mah K, Danjoux EC, Manship S, Makhani N, Cardoso M, Sixel KE. Computed tomographic simulation of craniospinal fields in pediatric patients: Improved treatment accuracy and patient comfort. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998; 41(5):997-1003.
  7. Parker WA, Freeman CR. A simple technique for craniospinal radiotherapy in the supine position. Radiother Oncol. 2006; 78(2):217-22.
  8. Parker W, Filion E, Roberge D, Freeman CR. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for craniospinal irradiation: Target volume considerations, dose constraints and competing risks. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007; 69(1):251-7.
  9. Spirou SV, Chui CS. Generation of arbitrary intensity profiles by dynamic jaws or multileaf collimators. Med Phys. 1994; 21(7):1031-41.
  10. Peñagaricano JA, Papanikolaou N, Yan Y, Youssef E, Ratanatharathorn V. Feasibility of cranio-spinal axis irradiation with the Hi-Art TomoTherapy system. Radiother Oncol. 2005; 76(1):72-8.
  11. Bauman G, Yartsev S, Coad T, Fisher B, Kron T. Helical tomotherapy for craniospinal radiation. Br J Radiol. 2005; 78(930):548-52.
  12. Parker W, Brodeur M, Roberge D, Freeman C. Standard and nonstandard craniospinal radiotherapy using helical TomoTherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 77(3): 926-31.
  13. Sugie C, Shibamoto Y, Ayakawa S, Mimura M, Komai K, Ishii M, et al. Craniospinal irradiation using helical tomotherapy: Evaluation of acute toxicity and dose distribution. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2011; 10(2):187–95.
  14. Kim J, Jeong K, Chung Y, Choi W, Woo J, Baek J, et al.  Feasibility of TomoDirect 3D-conformal radiotherapy for craniospinal irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol 2010; 78(3):828.
  15. Langner UW, Molloy JA, Gleason JF Jr, Feddock JM. A feasibility study using TomoDirect for craniospinal irradiation. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013;14(5):104-14.
  16. Patel S, Drodge S, Jacques A, Warkentin H, Powell K, Chafe S. A comparative planning analysis and integral dose of volumetric modulated arc therapy, helical tomotherapy, and three-dimensional conformal craniospinal irradiation for pediatric medulloblastoma. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2015; 46(2):134-40.
  17. Patil VM, Oinam AS, Chakraborty S, Ghoshal S, Sharma SC. Shielding in whole brain irradiation in the multileaf collimator era: Dosimetric evaluation of coverage using SFOP guidelines against in-house guidelines. J Cancer Res Ther. 2010; 6(2):152–8.
  18. Srivastava R, Saini G, Sharma P K, Chomal M, Aagarwal A, Nangia S, et al. A technique to reduce low dose region for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) with RapidArc and its dosimetric comparison with 3D conformal technique (3DCRT). J Cancer Res Ther. 2015; 11(2):488–91.
  19. Sharma DS, Gupta T, Jalali R, Master Z, Phurailatpam RD, Sarin R. High-precision radiotherapy for craniospinal irradiation: evaluation of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy and helical TomoTherapy. Br J Radiol. 2009; 82(984):1000-9.
  20. Shirley WS, Mark Collins, Jacky T L, George Chiu. A dosimetric comparison of craniospinal irradiation using TomoDirect radiotherapy, TomoHelical radiotherapy and 3D conventional radiotherapy.  Journal of Radiotherapy in Practices 2017; 16(4):391-402.

 

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 18, Issue 3
May and June 2021
Pages 164-170

  • Receive Date 05 January 2020
  • Revise Date 18 April 2020
  • Accept Date 17 June 2020