Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3857/jkstro.2010.28.2.99

Comparison of the Dose of the Normal Tissues among Various Conventional Techniques for Whole Brain Radiotherapy  

Kang, Min-Kyu (Department of Radiation Oncology, Yeungnam University College of Medicine)
Publication Information
Radiation Oncology Journal / v.28, no.2, 2010 , pp. 99-105 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: To compare radiation dose of the brain and lens among various conventional whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) techniques. Materials and Methods: Treatment plans for WBRT were generated with planning computed tomography scans of 11 patients. A traditional plan with an isocenter located at the field center and a parallel anterior margin at the lateral bony canthus was generated (P1). Blocks were automatically generated with a 1 cm margin on the brain (5 mm for the lens). Subsequently, the isocenter was moved to the lateral bony canthus (P2), and the blocks were replaced into the multileaf collimator (MLC) with a 5 mm leaf width in the craniocaudal direction (P3). For each patient plan, 30 Gy was prescribed at the isocenter of P1. Dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters of the brain and lens were compared by way of a paired t-test. Results: Mean values of $D_{max}$ and $V_{105}$ of the brain in P1 were 111.9% and 23.6%, respectively. In P2 and P3, $D_{max}$ and $V_{105}$ of the brain were significantly reduced to 107.2% and 4.5~4.6%, respectively (p<0.001). The mean value of $D_{mean}$ of the lens was 3.1 Gy in P1 and 2.4~2.9 Gy in P2 and P3 (p<0.001). Conclusion: WBRT treatment plans with an isocenter located at the lateral bony canthus have dosimetric advantages for both the brain and lens without any complex method changes.
Keywords
Whole brain radiotherapy; Brain; Lens; Dose distribution; Isocenter; Multileaf collimator;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 South M, Chiu JK, Teh BS, Bloch C, Schroeder TM, Paulino AC. Supine craniospinal irradiation using intrafractional junction shifts and field-in-field dose shaping: early experience at Methodist Hospital. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71: 477-483   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Goyal S, Yue NJ, Millevoi R, Kagan E, Haffty B, Narra V. Improvement in dose homogeneity with electronic tissue compensation over IMRT and conventional RT in whole brain radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2008;88:196-201   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Patel S, Macdonald OK, Suntharalingam M. Evaluation of the use of prophylactic cranial irradiation in small cell lung cancer. Cancer 2009;115:842-850   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Kim IH, Choi DH, Kim JH, Ha SW, Park CI, Ahn HS. Effect of prophylactic cranial irradiation in acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. J Korean Soc Ther Radiol 1989;7:269-278
5 Shinn KS, Kang KM, Kim HK, Choi IB, Kim IA. Prophylactic cranial irradiation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia in childhood. J Korean Soc Ther Radiol 1996;14:137-148
6 Meert AP, Paesmans M, Berghmans T, et al. Prophylactic cranial irradiation in small cell lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2001;1:5   DOI
7 Christ G, Denninger D, Dohm OS, Weigel B, Hones A, Paulsen F. Craniospinal radiotherapy in an advanced technique. Strahlenther Onkol 2008;184:530-535   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Soffietti R, Ruda R, Trevisan E. Brain metastases: current management and new developments. Curr Opin Oncol 2008; 20:676-684   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Merriam GR Jr, Focht EF. A clinical study of radiation cataracts and the relationship to dose. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1957;77:759-785
10 Woo SY, Donaldson SS, Heck RJ, Nielson KL, Shostak C. Minimizing and measuring lens dose when giving cranial irradiation. Radiother Oncol 1989;16:183-188   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Gillin MT, Kline RW, Kun LE. Cranial dose distribution. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1979;5:1903-1906   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Schipper J, Tan KE, van Peperzeel HA. Treatment of retinoblastoma by precision megavoltage radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol 1985;3:117-132   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Yu JB, Shiao SL, Knisely JP. A dosimetric evaluation of conventional helmet field irradiation versus two-field intensitymodulated radiotherapy technique. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;68:621-631   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Keall P, Arief I, Shamas S, Weiss E, Castle S. The development and investigation of a prototype three-dimensional compensator for whole brain radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 2008;53:2267-2276   DOI   ScienceOn
15 DeAngelis LM, Delattre JY, Posner JB. Radiationinduced dementia in patients cured of brain metastases. Neurology 1989;39:789-796   DOI
16 LoSasso T, Kutcher GJ. Multileaf collimation versus alloy blocks: analysis of geometric accuracy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995;32:499-506   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Cheng CW, Das IJ, Steinberg T. Role of multileaf collimator in replacing shielding blocks in radiation therapy. Int J Cancer 2001;96:385-395   DOI   ScienceOn
18 De Meerleer GO, Derie CM, Vakaet L, Fortan LG, Mersseman BK Jr, De Neve WJ. Execution of a singleisocenter three-field technique, using a multileaf collimator or tray-mounted cerrobend blocks: effect on treatment time. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997;39:255-259
19 Dirican B, Beyzadeoglu M, Turgay HT, Pak Y. Comparison of multileaf collimation and shield alloy blocks on an irregular target volume. Radiat Med 1996;14:293-296
20 Cheng CW, Wong JR, Ndlovu AM, Das IJ, Schiff P, Uematsu M. Dosimetric evaluation and clinical application of virtual mini-multileaf collimator. Am J Clin Oncol 2003;26:e37- 44
21 Kalapurakal JA, Sathiaseelan V, Bista T, Marymont MH. Adverse impact of multileaf collimator field shaping on lens dose in children with acute leukemia receiving cranial irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;48:1227-1231   DOI   ScienceOn