Clinical implementation of tangential field intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using sliding window technique and dosimetric comparison with 3D conformal therapy (3DCRT) in breast cancer.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical implementation of tangential field IMRT using sliding window technique and to compare dosimetric parameters with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT). Twenty breast cancer patients were randomly selected for comparison of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)-based treatment plan with 3DCRT. Inverse treatment was performed using the sliding window technique, employing the Eclipse Planning System (version 7.1.59, Varian, Palo Alto, CA). The dosimetric parameters compared were V(95) (the percentage of target volume getting > or =95% of prescribed dose), V(105), V(110), and dose homogeneity index, DHI (percentage of target volume getting between 95% and 110% of prescribed dose). The mean V(95), DHI, V(105), and V(110) for target volume for IMRT vs. 3D were 90.6% (standard deviation [SD]: 3.2) vs. 91% (SD: 3.0), 87.7 (SD: 6.0) vs. 82.6 (SD: 7.8), 27.3% (SD: 20.3) vs. 49.4% (SD: 14.3), and 2.8 (SD: 5.6) vs. 8.4% (SD: 7.4), respectively. DHI was increased by 6.3% with IMRT compared to 3DCRT (p < 0.05). The reductions of V(105) and V(110) for the IMRT compared to 3DCRT were 44.7% and 66.3%, respectively (p < 0.01). The mean dose and V(30) for heart with IMRT were 2.3 (SD: 1.1) and 1.05 (SD: 1.5) respectively, which was a reduction by 6.8% and 7.9%, respectively, in comparison with 3D. Similarly, the mean dose and V(20) for the ipsilateral lung and the percentage of volume of contralateral volume lung receiving > 5% of prescribed dose with IMRT were reduced by 9.9%, 2.2%, and 35%, respectively. The mean of total monitor units used for IMRT and 3DCRT was about the same (397 vs. 387). The tangential field IMRT for intact breast using sliding window technique was successfully implemented in the clinic. We have now treated more than 1000 breast cancer patients with this technique. The dosimetric data suggest improved dose homogeneity in the breast and reduction in the dose to lung and heart for IMRT treatments, which may be of clinical value in potentially contributing to improved cosmetic results and reduced late treatment-related toxicity.

Feasibility of concurrent cisplatin and extended field radiation therapy (EFRT) using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for carcinoma of the cervix.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the acute tolerance of delivering concurrent cisplatin and extended field radiotherapy (EFRT) using intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique (IMRT) for cancer of the cervix. METHODS: All patients receiving definitive treatment for cervical cancer were treated with EFRT using IMRT technique and concurrent cisplatin. The treatment volume included the cervix, uterus, parametria, presacral space, upper vagina, pelvic, common iliac, and paraaortic nodes to the top of L1. All regions received 45 Gy (25 fractions) with a simultaneous boost to involved nodes (55 Gy/25 fractions). Patients were assessed weekly for toxicity and response. RESULTS: Twenty-two consecutive patients underwent treatment. All patients completed the prescribed course of EFRT. Median treatment length was 39.5 days (range 36-53). Treatment breaks of 2 and 3 days were required for bone marrow toxicity in 2 patients. The final week of chemotherapy was held in 2 patients because of neutropenia. No patient suffered acute or subacute grade 3 or 4 GI or GU toxicity. CONCLUSION: In this clinical study, an IMRT technique was used to successfully deliver EFRT with concurrent chemosensitization for cervical cancer. The technique was associated with an acceptable acute toxicity without significant treatment protraction. This new role for IMRT merits further evaluation with larger patient numbers and longer follow-up.