Browse > Article

Evaluating the usefulness of BinkieRTTM (oral positioning stent) for Head and Neck Radiotherapy  

GyeongJin Lee (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital)
SangJun Son (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital)
GyeongDal Lim (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital)
ChanYong Kim (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital)
JeHee Lee (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy / v.34, no., 2022 , pp. 21-30 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of oral positioning stent, the BinkieRTTM in radiation treatment for head and neck cancer patients in terms of tongue positions reproducibility, tongue doses and material properties. Materials and Methods: 24 cases using BinkieRTTM during radiation treatments were enrolled. The tongue was contoured on planning CT and CBCT images taken every 3 days during treatment, and then the DSC and center of tongue shift values were analyzed to evaluate the reproducibility of the tongue. The tongue dose was compared in terms of dose distribution when using BinkieRTTM and different type of oral stents (mouthpiece, paraffin wax). Randomly selected respective 10 patients were measured tongue doses of initial treatment plan for nasal cavity and unilateral parotid cancer. Finally, In terms of material evaluation, HU and relative electron density were identified in RTPS. Results: As a result of DSC analysis, it was 0.8 ± 0.07, skewness -0.8, kurtosis 0.61, and 95% CI was 0.79~0.82. To analyze the deviation of the central tongue shift during the treatment period, a 95% confidence interval for shift in the LR, SI, and AP directions were indicated, and a one-sample t-test for 0, which is an ideal value in the deviation(n=144). As a result of the t-test, the mean and SD in the LR and SI directions were 0.01 ± 0.14 cm (p→.05), 0.03 ± 0.25 cm (p→.05), and -0.08 ± 0.25 cm (p ←.05) in the AP direction. In the case of unilateral parotid cancer patients, the Dmean to the tongue of patients using BinkieRTTM was 16.92% ± 3.58% compared to the prescribed dose, and 23.99% ± 10.86% of patients with Paraffin Wax, indicating that the tongue dose was relatively lower when using BinkieRTTM (p←.05). On the other hand, among nasal cavity cancer patients, the Dmean of tongue dose for patients who used BinkieRTTM was 4.4% ± 5.6%, and for those who used mouthpiece, 5.9% ± 6.8%, but it was not statistically significant (p→.05). The relative electron density of Paraffin Wax, BinkieRTTM and Putty is 0.94, 0.99, 1.26 and the mass density is 0.95, 0.99 and 1.32 (g/cc), Transmission Factor is 0.99, 0.98, 0.96 respectively. Conclusion: The result of the tongue DSC analysis over the treatment period was about 0.8 and Deviation of the center of tongue shifts were within 0.2 cm, the reproducibility was more likely excellent. In the case of unilateral head and neck cancer patients, it was found that the use of BinkieRTTM rather than Paraffin Wax or Putty can reduce the unnecessary dose irradiated to the tongue. This study might be useful to understand of BinkieRTTM's properties and advantages. And also it could be another considered option as oral stent to keep the reproducibility of tongue and reducing dose during head and neck radiation treatments.
Keywords
Head and neck cancer; oral positioning stent; $BinkieRT^{TM}$;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Bhide SA, Nutting CM, et al. Advances in radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol.
2 C Scully and J.B. Epstein European Journal of Cancer. Part B, Oral Oncology, 32B.
3 I.H. Valdez, J.C. Atkinson, J.A. Ship and P.C, et al. Fox International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.
4 Parsons JT. Time-dose-volume relation in radiation therapy. In: Million RR, Cassisi NJ, editors. Management of Head and Neck Cancer. A Multidisciplinary Approach. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Co.
5 Nutting C, Morden J, Harrington K, et al. Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomized controlled trial. Lancet Oncol.
6 Little M, Schipper M, Feng FY, et al. Reducing xerostomia after chemo-IMRT for head-and-neck cancer: beyond sparing the parotid gland. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
7 Eisbruch A, Schwartz M, Rasch C, et al. Dysphagia and aspiration after chemoradiaotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: Which anatomic structures are affected and can they be spared by IMRT? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
8 Sanguineti G, Guinn G, Parker B, et al. Weekly dose-volume parameters of mucosa and constrictor muscles predict the use of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy during exclusive intensity modulated radiotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
9 Tabak LA. In defense of the oral cavity: structure, biosynthesis, and function of salivary mucins. Annu Rev Physiol.
10 Hand A, Pathmanathan D, Field R. Morphological features of the minor salivary glands. Arch Oral Biol.
11 Mossman KL. Gustatory issue injury in man: Radiation dose response relationships and mechanisms of taste loss. Br J Cancer.
12 Jacobi I, Navran A, van der Molen L, et al. Radiation dose to the tongue and velopharynx predicts acoustic-articulatory changes after chemo-IMRT treatment for advanced head and neck cancer. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol.
13 Mantini G, Manfrida S, Cellini F, et al. Impact of dose and volume on radiation-induced mucositis. Rays.
14 Manon R, Myers J, Khuntia D, Harari P. Perez and Brady's Principles and Practice of Radiation Oncology: Oral cavity cancer. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
15 Cheewin Towithelertkul, Yuka I.Sumita, Toshihiro Murakami, et al. Radiation attenuation properties of materials used to fabricate radiotherapy prostheses in vitro study.
16 Atsushi Musha ,Hirofumi Shimada, Katsuyuki Shirai. Prediction of Acute Radiation Mucositis using an Oral Mucosal Dose Surface Model in Carbon Ion Radiatherapy for Head and Neck Tumors
17 Kudoh T1*, Ikushima H2, Kudoh K1, et al. Effectiveness of Newly Developed Water-Equivalent Mouthpiece during External Beam Radiotherapy for Oral Cancer.
18 Z.Feng, P.Wang, L.Gong, et al. Construction and clinical evaluation of a new customized bite block used in radiothearapy of head and neck cancer.
19 Joon-Yong Choi, Young-Jin Won, Ji-Yeon Park, et al. Development of a Thermoplastic oral Compensator for Improving Dose Uniformity in Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer.
20 Gooding MJ, Smith AJ, Tariq M, Aljabar P, Peressutti D, van der Stoep J, et al. Comparative evaluation of autocontouring in clinical practice: a practical method using the Turing test. Med Phys.
21 Van der Veen J, Willems S, Deschuymer S, Robben D, Crijns W, Maes F, et al. Benefits of deep learning for delineation of organs at risk in head and neck cancer.
22 Heimann T, Van Ginneken B, Styner MA, Arzhaeva Y, Aurich V, Bauer C, et al. Comparison and evaluation of methods for liver segmentation from CT datasets. IEEE Trans Med Imaging.
23 Femke Vaassen, Colien Hazelaar, Ana Vaniqui, et al. Evaluation of measures for assessing time-saving of automatic organ-at-risk segmentation in radiotherapy.
24 Orhu Utku Aydin, Abdel Aziz Taha, Adam Hilber, et al. On The Usage Of Average Haudorff Distance For Segmentation Performance Assessment: Hidden Bias When Used For Ranking.
25 J. Seco, P.M. Evans et al. Assessing the effect of electron density in photon dose calculations.
26 Luca Cozzi, Antonella Fogliata, Francesca Buffa, et al. Dosimetric impact of computed tomography calibration on a commercial treatment planning system for external radiation therapy.