Dosimetric Analysis of IMRT Plans in Head and Neck Cancers to Evaluate the Probability to Decrease Oral Mucositis | Chapter 5 | Perspective of Recent Advances in Medical Research Vol. 12

 The present study aims to evaluate the dose make use of these unspecified regions described as pseudo-OARs and if drawing of these structures and prescribing a decent dose constraint will humble the dose to the spoken mucosa without ruining the quality of the situation plan.A frequent and potentially weighty side effect of radiation remedy for head and neck malignancy is oral mucositis. When mucositis is harsh, it can be painful, create chewing and taking into throat difficult, and lead to situation failures that can influence local recurrence or a visit overall survival.A total of 10 head and neck tumor patients (six abnormal growth in animate being buccal mucosa cases and four malignant growth oropharynx) who had been considered by IMRT were selected for the backward-looking study. The pseudo-OAR involved anterior oral covering layer, part of jaw and maxilla, which was next to the PTV in oropharynx and contralateral buccal mucosa inmates. The dose restraint given to the pseudo-OAR was Dmean ≤30 Gy. Statistical importance was calculated by utilizing a paired t-test. A p- profit of <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.The dosimetric limits of PTV were comparable in two together the IMRT arms. The pre-specified objective was completed with two together the study arms. The measurement homogeneity and conformity was more similar. The dosimetric limits of other OARs were inside the prescribed dose restraints. The Dmean value of the artificial-OAR in arm I was 31.28 Gy ± 3.55 Gy and 7.87 Gy ± 9.11 Gy in arm II and the p -value was significant (p=0.001), inasmuch as the Dmax in arm I was 61.82 Gy ± 5.91 Gy and 61.23 Gy ± 5.54 Gy in arm II (p=0.6). The dose to the fake-OAR in IMRT arm II was reduced intensely by 75%, which was statistically significant. This study emphasises by what method crucial it search out identify the spoken mucosa as a pseudo-OAR in head and narrow connector cancer inmates receiving dissemination treatment. Clinical studies must optimise dose restraints, which will likely humble the prevalence and severity of spoken mucositis.

Author(s) Details:

Himanshi Khattar,
Department of Radiation Oncology, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, India.

Piyush Kumar,
Department of Radiation Oncology, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, India.

S. Navitha,
Department of Radiation Oncology, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, India.

Please see the link here: https://stm.bookpi.org/PRAMR-V12/article/view/9659

Dose Distribution Homogeneity between 3DBrachytherapy and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Techniques in Cervix Cancer Tumors: A Comparative Approach | Chapter 7 | Current Topics in Medicine and Medical Research Vol. 7

 Objective: To compare the dosimetric results of the 3DBrachytherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy IMRT techniques in patients with locally advanced cervical carcinoma (LACC) in this study. Methods: 15 patients with locally advanced cervical carcinoma (LACC) received 45 Gy/25 fractions after completion of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for entire pelvic irradiation, preceded by 3D-Brachytherapy 24 Gy for weekly fractions and 36 Gy for IMRT for 18 fractions. Two strategies contrasted the coverage of the amount of targets and the doses obtained by normal tissue. For this study , 15 3D-Brachytherapy treated LACC patients were chosen. For all the patients, IMRT plans were also made. Based on target volume coverage, dose to Organs at Risk (OAR's), homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index ( CI), the 3D-Brachytherapy and IMRT plans were compared. Performance: The results showed that in 3D-Brachytherapy, D90 percent of HRCTV covered more than D90 percent of PTV in I.

Author(s) Details

Mostafa Elnagger
Cancer Department, Management and Research Medical Research Institute, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.

Hussein A. Motaweh
Physics Department, Faculty of Sciences, Damanhour University, Damanhour, Egypt.Dr. Vipin Singh

Kareman Zard
Medical Physics Department, Alexandria Ayadi Almostakbl Oncology Center (AAAOC), Alexandria, Egypt.

View Book :- https://bp.bookpi.org/index.php/bpi/catalog/book/297

Results of a Comparative Study on Fast Superposition, Superposition Algorithm in Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Techniques for Prostate Cancer | Chapter 7 | Current Topics in Medicine and Medical Research Vol.5

 

This study aims to compare the dosimetric coverage of the Planning Target Volume (PTV) and the
dose to main organs at risk (OARs) between two dif-ferent algorithms fast superposition (FSUP),
superposition (SUP) using in-tensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques for prostate cancer.
Ten patients with prostate cancer were selected for this study. For each patient, IMRT plans were
created with 6 MV photon beam quality using CMS XiO treatment planning system. The delivery of
IMRT was carried out using the step and shoot techniques. The dose coverage for each patient was
designated to an ICRU report 62 reference point in the PTV, medium coverage of the planned target
volume to be 95% of the prescribed dose while the maximum dose in the target volume to be not
greater than 107% of the prescribed dose. A hypofractionated prescription dose of 70 Gy/28# at 2.5
Gy per fraction was used. For target, this evalua-tion was made with comparing the conformity index
(CI) and homogeneity index (HI). The results of the present study showed the OARs got less dose
from the SUP algorithm compared to FSUP algorithms. Statistically not significant difference was
observed in V107% of PTV, MU/CC, conformity Index (p = 0.057, p = 0.215, p = 0.370) and 95% PTV
Volume received prescription dose from both Plans. For prostate cancer, the superposition algorithm
showed better results in the IMRT plan compared to the fast superposition algorithm.

Author (s) Details

Dr. Mukesh Zope
Department of Medical Physics, State Cancer Institute, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, India.

Dr. Deepali Patil
Department of Medical Physics, State Cancer Institute, Indira Gandhi Institute of Department of Radiation Oncology, Paras HMRI Hospital, Patna, India.

Angel Kuriakose
Department of Radiotherapy, Mahavir Cancer Sansthan, Patna, India.

P. A. Aslam
Department of Radiotherapy, Mahavir Cancer Sansthan, Patna, India and Speciality of Medical Physics, Super Speciality of Cancer Institute and Hospital, Lucknow, India.

Basil George
Department of Radiotherapy, Regional Cancer Care Center and Cancer Hospital, Siddhpur, India.

Abhijit Mandal
Department of Radiotheraphy & Radiation Medicine, Institute of Medical Sciences, Varansi, India.

View Book :- https://bp.bookpi.org/index.php/bpi/catalog/book/270