Variability in the point to which single direct field irradiation is prescribed for spinal bone metastases: a survey of practice patterns in Japan

A dosimetric comparison of craniospinal irradiation using TomoDirect radiotherapy, TomoHelical radiotherapy and 3D conventional radiotherapy

Aim

The purpose of this study was to dosimetrically compare TomoDirect, TomoHelical and linear accelerator-based 3D-conformal radiotherapy (Linac-3DCRT) for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) in the treatment of medulloblastoma.

Methods

Five CSI patients were replanned with Linac-3DCRT, TomoHelical, TomoDirect-3DCRT and TomoDirect-intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Dose of 36 Gy in 20 fractions was prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV). Homogeneity index (HI), non-target integral dose (NTID), dose–volume histograms, organs-at-risk (OARs)Dmax,Dmeanand treatment times were compared.

Results

TomoHelical achieved the best PTV homogeneity compared with Linac-3DCRT, TomoDirect-3DCRT and TomoDirect-IMRT (HI of 3·6 versus 20·9, 8·7 and 9·4%, respectively). TomoDirect-IMRT achieved the lowest NTID compared with TomoDirect-3DCRT, TomoHelical and Linac-3DCRT (141 J versus 151 J, 181 J and 250 J), indicating least biological damage to normal tissues. TomoHelical plans achieved the lowestDmaxin all organs except the breasts, and lowestDmeanfor most OARs, except in laterally situated OARs, where TomoDirect triumphed. Beam-on time was longest for TomoHelical, followed by TomoDirect and Linac-3DCRT.

Findings

TomoDirect has the potential to lower NTID and shorten treatment times compared with TomoHelical. It reduces PTV inhomogeneity and better spares OARs compared with Linac-3DCRT. Therefore, TomoDirect may be a CSI treatment alternative to TomoHelical and in place of Linac-3DCRT.

Palliative radiotherapy for thoracic spine metastases: Dosimetric advantage of three-dimensional conformal plans

The aim of the present study was to investigate the dosimetric advantages of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) for thoracic spine metastases and compare it with conventional two-dimensional (2D) plans. Radiation therapy (RT) planning data of 10 patients with mid-to-low thoracic spine metastases were analyzed. Computed tomography simulation was performed and the planning target volume (PTV), heart, esophagus, lung and spinal cord were contoured. The 3DCRT plan comprised one posteroanterior (PA) field and two posterior oblique fields. The 2D plans used a single PA field or opposed anteroposterior (AP)/PA fields. The prescription dose of radiation was 30 Gy in 10 fractions. All comparisons of the maximum or mean doses to the organs at risk or the PTV, between two of the three RT plans, demonstrated statistically significant differences (P<0.05), with the exception of the mean esophageal doses between the single PA vs. AP/PA (P=0.285) plans. The mean heart doses were 15.0±3.1 Gy in single PA, 17.3±4.3 Gy in AP/PA and 8.5±1.7 Gy using 3DCRT. The median reduction rates using 3DCRT were 38.9% compared with single PA (range, 29.4-58.5%) or 47.5% relative to AP/PA (range, 34.5-67.1%). The mean esophageal doses were 17.9±2.3 Gy in single PA, 18.2±2.2 Gy in AP/PA and 15.3±1.9 Gy in 3DCRT. The median reduction rate using 3DCRT was 12.8% compared with single PA or 15.6% relative to AP/PA. Compared with the single PA or AP/PA 2D plan, 3DCRT reduced the median dose by 13.7 or 1.9% of the maximum spinal cord dose, respectively, and 14.7 or 2.9% of the maximum PTV dose, respectively. The mean lung doses were 2.7±0.7 Gy in single PA, 2.6±0.7 Gy in AP/PA and 5.1±1.0 Gy in 3DCRT. In conclusion, 3DCRT for mid-to-low thoracic spine metastases demonstrated significant dosimetric advantages by reducing the unnecessary irradiation of critical organs, particularly the heart, and by achieving a homogeneous target dose.