TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of IMRT techniques in the radiotherapeutic management of head and neck cancer
T2 - Is tomotherapy "better" than step-and-shoot IMRT?
AU - Chen, A. M.
AU - Marsano, J.
AU - Perks, J.
AU - Farwell, G.
AU - Luu, Q.
AU - Donald, P. J.
AU - Purdy, J. A.
PY - 2011/4
Y1 - 2011/4
N2 - Currently, the most common method of delivering intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is through step-and-shoot, segmental multi-leaf collimator (SMLC)-based techniques. Although rotational delivery methods such as helical tomotherapy (HT) have been proposed as offering advantages in the treatment of head and neck cancer, a lack of clinical data exists on its potential utility. This study compared dosimetric, clinical, and quality-of-life endpoints among 149 patients treated by HT and SMLC-IMRT for head and neck cancer. Dosimetric analysis revealed that the use of HT resulted in significant improvements with respect to mean dose (23.5 versus 27.9 Gy, p = 0.03) and V30 (30.1 versus 43.9 Gy, p = 0.01) to the contralateral (spared) parotid gland. However, the incidence of grade 3+ xerostomia in the late setting was 10% and 8% among patients treated by HT and SMLC-IMRT, respectively (p = 0.46). There were no significant differences in any of the quality of life endpoints among patients treated by HT and SMLC-IMRT (p > 0.05, for all). Acknowledging the biases inherent in this retrospective analysis, we found that the dosimetric advantages observed with HT compared to SMLC-IMRT failed to translate into significant improvements in clinical outcome. Prospective studies are needed to further evaluate how HT may affect the therapeutic ratio.
AB - Currently, the most common method of delivering intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is through step-and-shoot, segmental multi-leaf collimator (SMLC)-based techniques. Although rotational delivery methods such as helical tomotherapy (HT) have been proposed as offering advantages in the treatment of head and neck cancer, a lack of clinical data exists on its potential utility. This study compared dosimetric, clinical, and quality-of-life endpoints among 149 patients treated by HT and SMLC-IMRT for head and neck cancer. Dosimetric analysis revealed that the use of HT resulted in significant improvements with respect to mean dose (23.5 versus 27.9 Gy, p = 0.03) and V30 (30.1 versus 43.9 Gy, p = 0.01) to the contralateral (spared) parotid gland. However, the incidence of grade 3+ xerostomia in the late setting was 10% and 8% among patients treated by HT and SMLC-IMRT, respectively (p = 0.46). There were no significant differences in any of the quality of life endpoints among patients treated by HT and SMLC-IMRT (p > 0.05, for all). Acknowledging the biases inherent in this retrospective analysis, we found that the dosimetric advantages observed with HT compared to SMLC-IMRT failed to translate into significant improvements in clinical outcome. Prospective studies are needed to further evaluate how HT may affect the therapeutic ratio.
KW - Head and neck
KW - Helical tomotherapy
KW - Intensity-modulated radiotherapy
KW - Parotid sparing
KW - Radiation planning
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79953068803&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.7785/tcrt.2012.500192
DO - 10.7785/tcrt.2012.500192
M3 - Article
C2 - 21381795
AN - SCOPUS:79953068803
SN - 1533-0346
VL - 10
SP - 171
EP - 177
JO - Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment
JF - Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment
IS - 2
ER -