Extended-field bone marrow sparing radiotherapy for primary chemoradiotherapy in cervical cancer patients with para-aortic lymphadenopathy: Volumetric-modulated arc therapy versus helical tomotherapy
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February 15, 2020
Extended-field bone marrow sparing radiotherapy for primary chemoradiotherapy in cervical cancer patients with para-aortic lymphadenopathy: Volumetric-modulated arc therapy versus helical tomotherapy
Extended-field (EF) bone marrow-sparing (BMS) radiotherapy is attracting interest for cervical cancer patients with para-aortic lymphadenopathy.
OBJECTIVE:
To compare dosimetric quality of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. helical tomotherapy (HT) during EF BMS radiotherapy.
METHODS:
HT dose-volume histogram parameters including (1) coverage, homogeneity, and conformity of target volumes, (2) sparing of organs-at-risk, (3) monitor units, and (4) estimated treatment time were compared with those of VMAT in 20 cervical cancer patients who underwent EF BMS radiotherapy. The pelvic and para-aortic regions received 45-Gy dose (25 fractions), with simultaneous integrated boost of 55 Gy (25 fractions) for pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenopathy, followed by a parametrial boost of 9 Gy (5 fractions).
RESULTS:
The HT-based and VMAT techniques achieved adequate and similar target volume coverage with good dose homogeneity and conformity, while sparing all organs-at-risk, including the rectum, bladder, bowel, bone marrow, femoral head, kidney, and spinal cord. The HT treatment plan had significantly higher monitor units (p < 0.001) and longer estimated treatment times (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS:
VMAT and HT plans are suitable for EF BMS radiotherapy, which can achieve adequate target volume coverage while sufficiently sparing normal tissue. In addition, VMAT, compared to HT planning, yielded shorter estimated treatment times.
JoddaA., UrbanskiB., PiotrowskiT.et al., Relations between doses cumulated in bone marrow and dose delivery techniques during radiation therapy of cervical and endometrial cancer, Phys Med36 (2017), 54–59.
3.
JoddaA., PiotrowskiT., UrbańskiB.et al., Relations between dose cumulated in organs at risk and treatment based on different image-guidance strategies of cervical cancer, Phys Med57 (2019), 183–190.
4.
SharfoA.W., VoetP.W., BreedveldS.et al., Comparison of VMAT and IMRT strategies for cervical cancer patients using automated planning, Radiother Oncol114 (2015), 395–401.
5.
SoodB.M., GorlaG.R., GargM.et al., Extended-field radiotherapy and high-dose-rate brachytherapy in carcinoma of the uterine cervix: clinical experience with and without concomitant chemotherapy, Cancer97 (2003), 1781–1788.
6.
FengC.H., HasanY., KopecM., Al-HallaqH.A.Simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) spares OAR and reduces treatment time in locally advanced cervical cancer, J Appl Clin Med Phys17 (2016), 76–89.
7.
SugieC., ManabeY., HayashiA.et al., Efficacy of the Dynamic Jaw Mode in Helical Tomotherapy With Static Ports for Breast Cancer, Technol Cancer Res Treat14 (2015), 459–465.
8.
ChenC.Y., LeeL.M., YuH.W.et al., Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of Cyberknife and Tomotherapy in stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer, J Xray Sci Technol25 (2017), 465–477.
9.
JaffrayD.A., LindsayP.E., BrockK.K.et al., Accurate accumulation of dose for improved understanding of radiation effects in normal tissue, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys76(3 Suppl) (2010), S135–S139.
10.
GayH.A., BartholdH.J., O’MearaE.et al., Pelvic normal tissue contouring guidelines for radiation therapy: a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group consensus panel atlas, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys83 (2012), e353–e362.
11.
StraussH.G., KuhntT., LabanC.et al., Chemoradiation in cervical cancer with cisplatin and high-dose rate brachytherapy combined with external beam radiotherapy. Results of a phase-II study, Strahlenther Onkol178 (2002), 378–385.
12.
ChenJ.L., HuangC.Y., HuangY.S.et al., Differential clinical characteristics, treatment response and prognosis of locally advanced adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of cervix treated with definitive radiotherapy, Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand93 (2014), 661–668.
13.
ChenJ.L., ChengJ.C., KuoS.H.et al., Outcome analysis of cervical adenosquamous carcinoma compared with adenocarcinoma, Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand91 (2012), 1158–1166.
14.
ChenJ.L., HuangY.S., KuoS.H.et al., Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for T4 nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Treatment results and locoregional recurrence, Strahlenther Onkol189 (2013), 1001–1008.
15.
AlbuquerqueK., GiangrecoD., MorrisonC.et al., Radiation-related predictors of hematologic toxicity after concurrent chemoradiation for cervical cancer and implications for bone marrow sparing pelvic IMRT, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys79 (2011), 1043–1047.
16.
LimK., SmallW.Jr., PortelanceL., et al., Consensus guidelines for delineation of clinical target volume for intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy for the definitive treatment of cervix cancer, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys79 (2011), 348–355.
17.
SobinL.H., GospodarowiczM.K., WittekindC., TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours, 7th Edition, Wiley-Blackwell, New Jersey, 2009.
18.
MellL.K., SirakI., WeiL.et al., Bone marrow-sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy with concurrent cisplatin for stage IB-IVA cervical cancer: an international multicenter phase II clinical trial (INTERTECC-2), Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys97 (2017), 536–545.
19.
WaliL., HelalA., DarweshR.et al., A dosimetric comparison of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and High Dose Rate (HDR) brachytherapy in localized cervical cancer radiotherapy, J Xray Sci Technol27 (2019), 473–483.
20.
MurakamiN., OkamotoH., KasamatsuT.et al., A dosimetric analysis of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with bone marrow sparing for cervical cancer, Anticancer Res34 (2014), 5091–5098.
KujiS., HirashimaY., KomedaS.et al., Feasibility of extended-field irradiation and intracavitary brachytherapy combined with weekly cisplatin chemosensitization for IB2-IIIB cervical cancer with positive paraaortic or high common iliac lymph nodes: a retrospective review, Int J Clin Oncol19 (2014), 341–347.
24.
MarnitzS., LukarskiD., KohlerC.et al., Helical tomotherapy versus conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy for primary chemoradiation in cervical cancer patients: an intraindividual comparison, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys81 (2011), 424–430.
25.
MarnitzS., WlodarczykW., NeumannO.et al., Which technique for radiation is most beneficial for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer? Intensity modulated proton therapy versus intensity modulated photon treatment, helical tomotherapy and volumetric arc therapy for primary radiation – an intraindividual comparison, Radiat Oncol10 (2015), 91.
26.
ChenS.W., LiangJ.A., YangS.N.et al., The adverse effect of treatment prolongation in cervical cancer by high-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy, Radiother Oncol67 (2003), 69–76.
27.
PiotrowskiT., CzajkaE., BakB.et al., Tomotherapy: Implications on daily workload and scheduling patients based on three years’ institutional experience, Technol Cancer Res Treat13 (2014), 233–242.
28.
DengX., HanC., ChenS.et al., Dosimetric benefits of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy in the treatment of postoperative cervical cancer patients, J Appl Clin Med Phys18 (2017), 25–31.
29.
KimY.B., KimJ.H., JeongK.K.et al., Dosimetric comparisons of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and helical tomotherapy in whole abdominopelvic radiotherapy for gynecologic malignancy, Technol Cancer Res Treat8 (2009), 369–377.
30.
LiangY., BydderM., YasharC.M.et al., Prospective study of functional bone marrow-sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy for pelvic malignancies, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys85 (2013), 406–414.
31.
BaoZ., WangD., ChenS.et al., Optimal dose limitation strategy for bone marrow sparing in intensity-modulated radiotherapy of cervical cancer, Radiat Oncol14 (2019), 118.
