RESUMO
A 71-year-old man with stage IIB (Union for International Cancer Control, 8th edition) non-small cell lung cancer underwent intensity-modulated radiation therapy with a dose of 66 Gy administered in 33 fractions concomitant with carboplatin and paclitaxel therapy. On computed tomography after completion of radiation therapy, ground-glass opacity, which was larger on the contralateral side, was observed, but it was not observed in the high-dose area on the ipsilateral side. Although the adverse event theoretically shows dose dependency, it was finally diagnosed as radiation pneumonitis. The presence of an atypical distribution of radiation pneumonitis should be recognized to improve the diagnosis, and it is suggested that the relative volume of the normal contralateral lung receiving a dose of ≥5 Gy is a possible risk factor for radiation pneumonitis.
Assuntos
Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Pneumonite por Radiação , Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada , Idoso , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/radioterapia , Quimiorradioterapia/efeitos adversos , Quimiorradioterapia/métodos , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/radioterapia , Masculino , Pneumonite por Radiação/diagnóstico , Pneumonite por Radiação/tratamento farmacológico , Pneumonite por Radiação/etiologia , Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada/efeitos adversos , Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada/métodosRESUMO
We created volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) in hepatocellular carcinoma, and compared the results with those from three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and rotational conformal radiotherapy (R-CRT) plans. CT scan data from 10 consecutive patients with PVTT treated with 3D-CRT between January 2008 and January 2010 were utilized in the analysis. We analyzed the dosimetric properties of the plans for the 10 patients using the three different techniques with three different isocenter doses of 50, 56 and 60 Gy in 2-Gy fractions. The D95, Dmean, homogeneity index and conformity index were compared for the planning target volume (PTV). The Dmean, V20 and V30 were also compared for normal livers. The monitor units (MUs) and the treatment time were also evaluated. The normal liver V30 for VMAT was significantly less than that for 3D-CRT for the prescribed doses of 56 and 60 Gy (P < 0.05). It was also found that the normal liver V30 resulting from 3D-CRT was prohibitively increased when the prescribed dose was increased in two steps. For PTV D95, we found no significant differences between the three techniques for the 50- and 56-Gy prescriptions, or between VMAT and the other techniques for the 60-Gy prescription. The differences in the MUs and treatment times were not statistically significant between VMAT and 3D-CRT. We have demonstrated that VMAT may be a more advantageous technique for dose escalation reaching 60 Gy in the treatment of PVTT due to the reduced normal liver V30.
Assuntos
Carcinoma Hepatocelular/complicações , Neoplasias Hepáticas/complicações , Veia Porta/patologia , Planejamento da Radioterapia Assistida por Computador/métodos , Radioterapia Conformacional/métodos , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Fígado/efeitos da radiação , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Movimento , Veia Porta/diagnóstico por imagem , Radiometria/métodos , Dosagem Radioterapêutica , Radioterapia de Intensidade Modulada/métodos , Trombose/radioterapia , Fatores de Tempo , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X/métodosRESUMO
We created volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for 31 prostate cancer patients using one of three treatment planning systems (TPSs)--ERGO++, Monaco, or Pinnacle--and then treated those patients. A dose of 74 Gy was prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV). The rectum, bladder, and femur were chosen as organs at risk (OARs) with specified dose-volume constraints. Dose volume histograms (DVHs), the mean dose rate, the beam-on time, and early treatment outcomes were evaluated and compared. The DVHs calculated for the three TPSs were comparable. The mean dose rates and beam-on times for Ergo++, Monaco, and SmartArc were, respectively, 174.3 ± 17.7, 149.7 ± 8.4, and 185.8 ± 15.6 MU/min and 132.7 ± 8.4, 217.6 ± 13.1, and 127.5 ± 27.1 sec. During a follow-up period of 486.2 ± 289.9 days, local recurrence was not observed, but distant metastasis was observed in a single patient. Adverse events of grade 3 to grade 4 were not observed. The mean dose rate for Monaco was significantly lower than that for ERGO++ and SmartArc (P < 0.0001), and the beam-on time for Monaco was significantly longer than that for ERGO++ and SmartArc (P < 0.0001). Each TPS was successfully used for prostate VMAT planning without significant differences in early clinical outcomes despite significant TPS-specific delivery parameter variations.