RESUMEN
In metastatic or locally advanced head and neck tumors that present in frail patients or after chemotherapy progression, radiotherapy is normally used as a palliative treatment, with a high rate of symptom palliation and improvement in quality of life. However, there is controversy about what the optimal regimen is. Moreover, despite the poor prognosis of metastatic head and neck cancer, different retrospective studies have shown that a minority of patients with oligometastatic disease experience prolonged disease-free survival after adding curative radiotherapy treatment to the metastatic disease and/or primary tumor. Different retrospective studies have identified clinical prognostic factors that may be used to select candidate patients with metastatic head and neck cancer for a radical approach with radiotherapy. The purpose of this manuscript is to review the role of radiotherapy in metastatic and locally advanced head and neck tumors.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Modern conformal radiotherapy treatments require accurate dose calculation in any relevant clinical situation. One of these situations is the treatment of lung tumors, where irradiation has to be planned under challenging conditions for dose calculation. In this study we assess the errors in dose values predicted by fast Fourier transform convolution (FFTC) and multigrid superposition (MGS) algorithms implemented in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: FFTC and MGS algorithms were used in a FOCUS 3.0.0 (Computerized Medical Systems, USA) to calculate doses in treatment plans using photon beams of 6 and 25 MV nominal energy from a Saturne 43 linac (GE Medical Systems, USA). A 10x10-cm beam irradiating a mediastinum-lung and a thoracic wall-lung-thoracic wall modeled geometry was assessed. The calculated data were compared with measurements performed with radiographic films and ionization chamber. RESULTS: FFTC algorithm leads to an average deviation from ionometric dose measurements of over 10%. Discrepancies between measured and calculated beam fringe values (distance between 50 and 90% isodose lines) of up to 8 mm were observed. For MGS algorithm, all the points assessed in both geometries fulfilled the 3%-3 mm accuracy criteria and the average deviation of absolute dose was about 1%. A maximum of 3 mm deviation in the beam fringe for any depth was found and was within 2 mm beyond the buildup region. Deviations between ionometric and film measurements were within 3%. CONCLUSIONS: MGS algorithm assesses with reasonable accuracy dose distributions and absolute dose in inhomogeneous regions like the lung region. Therefore, and respecting the inhomogeneity dose calculation, the system could be used in routine clinical practice and in dose-escalation programs. This is not true in the case of FFTC algorithm which leads to errors greater than 10% in the absolute dose calculation and underestimates the beam fringe by up to 8 mm.
