Joseph Y. Ting

TREATMENT OF PANCREATIC CANCER TUMORS WITH INTENSITY- MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY (IMRT) USING THE VOLUME AT RISK APPROACH (VARA): EMPLOYING DOSE-VOLUME HISTOGRAM (DVH) AND NORMAL TISSUE COMPLICATION PROBABILITY (NTCP) TO EVALUATE SMALL BOWEL TOXICITY

The emergent use of a combined modality approach (chemotherapy and radiation) in pancreatic cancer is associated with increased gastrointestinal toxicity. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has the potential to deliver adequate dose to the tumor volume while decreasing the dose to critical structures such as the small bowel. We evaluated the influence of IMRT with inverse treatment planning on the dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of normal tissue compared to standard 3-dimensional conformal radiation treatment (3D-CRT) in patients with pancreatic cancer. Between July 1999 and May 2001, 10 randomly selected patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head were planned simultaneously with 3D-CRT and inverse-planned IMRT using the volume at risk approach (VaRA) and compared for various dosimetric parameters. DVH and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were calculated using IMRT and 3D-CRT plans. The aim of the treatment plan was to deliver 61.2 Gy to the gross tumor volume (GTV) and 45 Gy to the clinical treatment volume (CTV) while maintaining critical normal tissues to below specified tolerances. IMRT plans were more conformal than 3D-CRT plans. The average dose delivered to one third of the small bowel was lower with the IMRT plan compared to 3D-CRT. The IMRT plan resulted in one third of the small bowel receiving 30.2+/-12.9 Gy vs. 38.5+/-14.2 Gy with 3D-CRT (p = 0.006). The median volume of small bowel that received greater than either 50 or 60 Gy was reduced with IMRT. The median volume of small bowel exceeding 50 Gy was 19.2+/-11.2% (range 3% to 45%) compared to 31.4+/-21.3 (range 7% to 70%) for 3D-CRT (p = 0.048). The median volume of small bowel that received greater than 60 Gy was 12.5+/-4.8% for IMRT compared to 19.8+/-18.6% for 3D-CRT (p = 0.034). The VaRA approach employing IMRT techniques resulted in a lower dose per volume of small bowel that exceeded 60 Gy. We used the Lyman-Kutcher models to compare the probability of small bowel injury employing IMRT compared to 3D-CRT. The BIOPLAN model predicted a small bowel complication probability of 9.3+/-6% with IMRT compared to 24.4+/-18.9% with 3D-CRT delivery of dose (p = 0.021). IMRT with an inverse treatment plan has the potential to significantly improve radiation therapy of pancreatic cancers by reducing normal tissue dose, and simultaneously allow escalation of dose to further enhance locoregional control.

Dose verification for patients undergoing IMRT

At Emory Clinic intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) was started by using dynamic multileaf collimators (dMLC) as electronic tissue compensators in August 1998. Our IMRT program evolved with the inclusion of a commercially available inverse treatment planning system in September 1999. While the introduction of electronic tissue compensators into clinical use did not affect the customary radiation oncology practice, inverse treatment planning does alter our basic routines. Basic concepts of radiation therapy port designs for inverse treatment planning are different from conventional or 3D conformal treatments. With inverse treatment planning, clinicians are required to outline a gross tumor volume (GTV), a clinical target volume (CTV), critical normal structures, and to design a planning target volume (PTV). Clinicians do not designate the volume to be shielded. Because each IMRT radiation portal is composed of many beamlets with varying intensities, methods and practice used to verify delivered dose from IMRT portals are also different from conventional treatment portals. Often, the validity of measured data is in doubt. Therefore, checking treatment planning computer output with measurements are confusing and fruitless, at times. Commissioning an IMRT program and routine patient dose verification of IMRT require films and ionization chamber measurements in phantom. Additional specialized physics instrumentation is not required other than those available in a typical radiation oncology facility. At this time, we consider that routine quality assurance prior to patient treatments is necessary.

Extra-target doses in children receiving multileaf collimator (MLC) based intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)

To investigate the extra‐target doses using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

Medical physicists in developed countries should actively help medical physicists in developing countries

Suggestions for topics suitable for these Point/Counterpoint debates should be addressed to the Moderator: William R. Hendee, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee: whendee@mcw.edu. Persons participating in Point/Counterpoint discussions are selected for their knowledge and communicative skill. Their positions for or against a proposition may or may not reflect their personal opinions or the positions of their employers.