open access

Vol 63, No 3 (2013)
Research paper (original)
Published online: 2013-07-16
Get Citation

The comparison of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) in planning of adiuvant radiotherapy for patients with pancreatic cancer

Grzegorz Głowacki, Iwona Wesołowska, Dawid Bodusz, Edyta Wolny, Łukasz Michalecki, Leszek Miszczyk, Jerzy Wydmański
DOI: 10.5603/NJO.2013.0004
·
Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology 2013;63(3):234-240.

open access

Vol 63, No 3 (2013)
Original article
Published online: 2013-07-16

Abstract

Introduction. Pancreatic cancer is the sixth highest cause of mortality in patients with malignant neoplasms in Poland.
The results of treatment are poor and prognosis unfavourable. The basic method of treatment is surgery with
adjuvant chemo or radiochemotherapy.
Aim. The aim of the study was to compare CFRT (2F, 3F, 4F) and IMRT in planning of adiuvant radiotherapy for fi fteen
patients with pancreatic cancer.

Material and method. For each patient from this group four treatment plans were performed: three for CFRT and
one for IMRT. The CFRT plans consisted of two opposite fi elds (2F), two opposite fi elds and one oblique fi elds (3F),
two lateral and two oblique fi elds (4F) and the IMRT plan. The treatment plans were performed to achieve a minimum
dose to the PTV which was no lower than 95% of the total prescribed dose. Treatment plans were compared using
dose-volume histograms (DVH) and using V20 parameter for left (LK) and right kidney (RK), V30 for liver (L), maximal
dose for spinal cord (SC), maximal dose for intestines (IN), mean dose for whole liver and each kidney. The PTC (Percent
Target Coverage), CI (Conformity Index) and HI (Homogenity Index) parameters were evaluated for each plan. For the
evaluation of statistical signifi cance the nonparametric Wilcoxon’s test was performed.

Results. The minimum dose in the PTV (PTVmin) for 2F plan was: 42.8 Gy, 3F — 42.9 Gy, 4F — 43.2 Gy and in IMRT
— 43.2 Gy (p = 0.006). The maximal dose for spinal cord was acceptable in all plans (3F — 44 Gy, 4F — 42 Gy, IMRT
— 45 Gy) except in 2F — 47.7 Gy (2F vs IMRT p = 0.00065, 3F vs IMRT p = 0.95, 4F vs IMRT p = 0.005). The median volume
for each kidney V20 was comparable for all conformal plans. For the left kidney 44.7%, 41%, 40% for 2F, 3F and
4F respectively and 11.3%, 10.7%, 9.2% for the right kidney. The V20 for the left kidney was 18% and 6% for the right
kidney using the IMRT plans (p < 0.002). The V30 for the liver was comparable for each of the plans: 2F — 8,3%, 3F
— 8%, 4F — 7% and IMRT — 7%. (2F vs IMRT p = 0.015, 3F vs IMRT p = 0.04, 4F vs IMRT p = 0.36). The maximal dose
to the intestines was acceptable in all plans 2F — 48.5 Gy, 3F — 47.0 Gy, 4F — 46.7 Gy, IMRT — 48.0 Gy (p = 0.001).

Conclusions. Using IMRT in the planning of adjuvant radiotherapy for patients after surgery for pancreatic cancer
achieves a better dose distribution and protection of kidneys compared to standard conformal planning. All techniques
achieved a similar dose distribution in the liver and intestines.

Abstract

Introduction. Pancreatic cancer is the sixth highest cause of mortality in patients with malignant neoplasms in Poland.
The results of treatment are poor and prognosis unfavourable. The basic method of treatment is surgery with
adjuvant chemo or radiochemotherapy.
Aim. The aim of the study was to compare CFRT (2F, 3F, 4F) and IMRT in planning of adiuvant radiotherapy for fi fteen
patients with pancreatic cancer.

Material and method. For each patient from this group four treatment plans were performed: three for CFRT and
one for IMRT. The CFRT plans consisted of two opposite fi elds (2F), two opposite fi elds and one oblique fi elds (3F),
two lateral and two oblique fi elds (4F) and the IMRT plan. The treatment plans were performed to achieve a minimum
dose to the PTV which was no lower than 95% of the total prescribed dose. Treatment plans were compared using
dose-volume histograms (DVH) and using V20 parameter for left (LK) and right kidney (RK), V30 for liver (L), maximal
dose for spinal cord (SC), maximal dose for intestines (IN), mean dose for whole liver and each kidney. The PTC (Percent
Target Coverage), CI (Conformity Index) and HI (Homogenity Index) parameters were evaluated for each plan. For the
evaluation of statistical signifi cance the nonparametric Wilcoxon’s test was performed.

Results. The minimum dose in the PTV (PTVmin) for 2F plan was: 42.8 Gy, 3F — 42.9 Gy, 4F — 43.2 Gy and in IMRT
— 43.2 Gy (p = 0.006). The maximal dose for spinal cord was acceptable in all plans (3F — 44 Gy, 4F — 42 Gy, IMRT
— 45 Gy) except in 2F — 47.7 Gy (2F vs IMRT p = 0.00065, 3F vs IMRT p = 0.95, 4F vs IMRT p = 0.005). The median volume
for each kidney V20 was comparable for all conformal plans. For the left kidney 44.7%, 41%, 40% for 2F, 3F and
4F respectively and 11.3%, 10.7%, 9.2% for the right kidney. The V20 for the left kidney was 18% and 6% for the right
kidney using the IMRT plans (p < 0.002). The V30 for the liver was comparable for each of the plans: 2F — 8,3%, 3F
— 8%, 4F — 7% and IMRT — 7%. (2F vs IMRT p = 0.015, 3F vs IMRT p = 0.04, 4F vs IMRT p = 0.36). The maximal dose
to the intestines was acceptable in all plans 2F — 48.5 Gy, 3F — 47.0 Gy, 4F — 46.7 Gy, IMRT — 48.0 Gy (p = 0.001).

Conclusions. Using IMRT in the planning of adjuvant radiotherapy for patients after surgery for pancreatic cancer
achieves a better dose distribution and protection of kidneys compared to standard conformal planning. All techniques
achieved a similar dose distribution in the liver and intestines.
Get Citation
About this article
Title

The comparison of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) in planning of adiuvant radiotherapy for patients with pancreatic cancer

Journal

Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology

Issue

Vol 63, No 3 (2013)

Article type

Research paper (original)

Pages

234-240

Published online

2013-07-16

DOI

10.5603/NJO.2013.0004

Bibliographic record

Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology 2013;63(3):234-240.

Authors

Grzegorz Głowacki
Iwona Wesołowska
Dawid Bodusz
Edyta Wolny
Łukasz Michalecki
Leszek Miszczyk
Jerzy Wydmański

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

Wydawcą serwisu jest VM Media sp. z o.o. VM Group sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl