中华放射肿瘤学杂志
Wednesday, Apr. 23, 2025   Home | Journal | Editorial | Instruction | Subscription | Advertisement | Academic | Index-in | Contact Us | Chinese
Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology  2018, Vol. 27 Issue (6): 548-552    DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2018.06.002
Head and Neck Tumors Current Issue| Next Issue| Archive| Adv Search [an error occurred while processing this directive] | [an error occurred while processing this directive]
Dosimetric comparison and assessment of second cancer risk between helical tomotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy in children with craniospinal irradiation
Zou Xue, Tang Zheng, Jin Fu, Luo Huanli, Hhuang Xia, Wang Ying
Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing Cancer Institute, Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing 400030,China
Download: PDF (0 KB)   HTML (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      Supporting Info
Abstract  

Objective To investigate the dosimetric characteristics between helical tomotherapy (HT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans in children receiving craniospinal irradiation and estimate the risk of radiogenic second cancer according to the excess absolute risk (EAR) model. Methods Computer-tomography scans of 15 children who received craniospinal irradiation between 2012 and 2017 were selected. HT and IMRT plans were designed for each patient after contouring the volumes of tumors and organ at risks (OARs) and then the homogeneous index (HI), conformity index (CI), the maximum dose and the mean dose of OAR, V10 and V20 were analyzed to optimize the clinical treatment plan. The second cancer risk was estimated by DVH of each organ and EAR model and statistically compared between HT and IMRT. Results Both two plans met the clinical requirements in target coverage (100% dose≥95% target volume).The HI in the HT group was significantly superior to that in the IMRT group (P=0.000) whereas no significant difference was noted in CI between two groups. Compared with the IMRT plan, HT plan possessed absolute advantage in protecting hippocampus and the D2% and Dmean were significantly lower (P=0.000).As for the protection of OAR, the Dmax, Dmean and V20 of thyroid (P=0.001,0.002 and 0.014) and Dmax,V10 of heart (P=0.001 and 0.003) in the HT plan were significantly lower than those in the IMRT plan. In terms of second cancer risk, HT plan yielded a significantly higher second cancer risk for thyroid and lung compared with IMRT the EAR in thyroid was 28.666 vs. 26.926(P=0.010) and 20.496 vs. 18.922(P=0.003) in lung. Both plans yielded a relatively high second cancer risk for stomach (P=0.248), whereas a low second cancer risk for liver (P=0.020). Conclusions HT plan is superior to IMRT plan in the hippocampus-sparing craniospinal irradiation in children. However, HT plan yields a high second cancer risk for thyroid and lung. Consequently, the balance between the carcinogenic risk and the effect on other normal tissues should be assessed in the establishment of therapeutic plan.

Service
E-mail this article
Add to my bookshelf
Add to citation manager
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Zou Xue
Tang Zheng
Jin Fu
Luo Huanli
Hhuang Xia
Wang Ying
Key wordsHelical tomotherapy      Intensity-modulated radiotherapy      Craniospinal irradiation      Dosimetrics      Second cancer risk     
Received: 17 November 2017     
Fund:

Key Project of Changqing City Health and Family Planning Commision(2015ZDXM041);National Natural Science Foundation of China(11575038)

Corresponding Authors: Wang Ying,Email:wangying_cq@hotmail.com   
Cite this article:   
Zou Xue,Tang Zheng,Jin Fu et al. Dosimetric comparison and assessment of second cancer risk between helical tomotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy in children with craniospinal irradiation[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2018, 27(6): 548-552.
Zou Xue,Tang Zheng,Jin Fu et al. Dosimetric comparison and assessment of second cancer risk between helical tomotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy in children with craniospinal irradiation[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2018, 27(6): 548-552.
URL:  
http://journal12.magtechjournal.com/Jweb_fszlx/EN/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2018.06.002     OR     http://journal12.magtechjournal.com/Jweb_fszlx/EN/Y2018/V27/I6/548
  Copyright © 2010 Editorial By Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology
Support by Beijing Magtech Co.ltd  support@magtech.com.cn