Dose variations in tumor volumes and organs at risk during IMRT for head-and-neck cancer.

Many head-and-neck cancer (HNC) patients treated with radiotherapy suffer significant anatomical changes due to tumor shrinkage or weight loss. The purpose of this study was to assess dose changes over target volumes and organs at risk during intensity-modulated radiotherapy for HNC patients. Sixteen HNC IMRT patients, all requiring bilateral neck irradiation, were enrolled in the study. A CTplan was performed and the initial dose distribution was calculated. During the treatment, two subsequent CTs at the 15th (CT15) and 25th (CT25) fractions were acquired. The initial plan was calculated on the CT15 and CT25, and dose-volume differences related to the CTplan were assessed. For target volumes, mean values of near-maximun absorbed dose (D2%) increased at the 25th fraction, and doses covering 95% and 98% of volume decreased significantly at the 15th fraction. Contralateral and ipsilateral parotid gland mean doses increased by 6.1% (range: -5.4, 23.5%) and 4.7% (range: -9.1, 22.3%), respectively, at CT25. The D2% in the spinal cord increased by 1.8 Gy at CT15. Mean absorbed dose increases at CT15 and CT25 were observed in: the lips, 3.8% and 5.3%; the oral cavity, 3.5% and 2.5%; and lower middle neck structure, 1.9% and 1.6%. Anatomical changes during treatment of HNC patients affect dose distribution and induce a loss of dose coverage to target volumes and an overdosage to critical structures. Appropriate organs at risk have to be contoured and monitored in order to know if the initial plan remains suitable during the course of the treatment. Reported dosimetric data can help to identify patients who could benefit from adaptive radiotherapy.

Multicentre validation of IMRT pre-treatment verification: comparison of in-house and external audit.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We performed a multicentre intercomparison of IMRT optimisation and dose planning and IMRT pre-treatment verification methods and results. The aims were to check consistency between dose plans and to validate whether in-house pre-treatment verification results agreed with those of an external audit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participating centres used two mock cases (prostate and head and neck) for the intercomparison and audit. Compliance to dosimetric goals and total number of MU per plan were collected. A simple quality index to compare the different plans was proposed. We compared gamma index pass rates using the centre's equipment and methodology to those of an external audit. RESULTS: While for the prostate case, all centres fulfilled the dosimetric goals and plan quality was homogeneous, that was not the case for the head and neck case. The number of MU did not correlate with the plan quality index. Pre-treatment verifications results of the external audit did not agree with those of the in-house measurements for two centres: being within tolerance for in-house measurements and unacceptable for the audit or the other way round. CONCLUSIONS: Although all plans fulfilled dosimetric constraints, plan quality is highly dependent on the planner expertise. External audits are an excellent tool to detect errors in IMRT implementation and cannot be replaced by intercomparison using results obtained by centres.