Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Medical Physics and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research article

Comparison of the dosimetries of 3-dimensions Radiotherapy (3D-RT) with linear accelerator and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with helical tomotherapy in children irradiated for neuroblastoma

Violaine Beneyton1, Claudine Niederst1, Céline Vigneron1, Philippe Meyer1, François Becmeur2, Luc Marcellin3, Patrick Lutz4 and Georges Noel1*

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre de lutte contre le Cancer Paul Strauss, BP42, 3, rue de la porte de l’hôpital, BP 62, F-67065, Strasbourg, cedex, France

2 Pediatric Surgery Department, CHU Hautepierre, avenue Molière, F-67000, Strasbourg, France

3 Pathology Department, CHU Hautepierre, avenue Molière, F-67000, Strasbourg, France

4 Pediatric Oncology Department, CHU Hautepierre, avenue Molière, F-67000, Strasbourg, France

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Medical Physics 2012, 12:2  doi:10.1186/1756-6649-12-2

Published: 28 June 2012

Abstract

Background

Intensity modulated radiotherapy is an efficient radiotherapy technique to increase dose in target volumes and decrease irradiation dose in organs at risk. This last objective is mainly relevant in children. However, previous results suggested that IMRT could increase low dose, factor of risk for secondary radiation induced cancer. This study was performed to compare dose distributions with 3D-radiotherapy (3D-RT) and IMRT with tomotherapy (HT) in children with neuroblastoma. Seven children with neuroblastoma were irradiated. Treatment plans were calculated for 3D-RT, and for HT. For the volume of interest, the PTV-V95% and conformity index were calculated. Dose constraints of all the organs at risk and integral dose were compared.

Results

The conformity index was statistically better for HT than for 3D-RT. PTV-V95% constraint was reached in 6 cases with HT compared to 2 cases with 3D-RT. For the ipsilateral kidney of the tumor, the V12 Gy constraint was reached for 3 patients with both methods. The values were lower with HT than with 3D-RT in two cases and higher in one case. The threshold was not reached for one patient with either technique, but the value was lower with HT than with 3D-RT. For the contralateral kidney of the tumors, the V12 Gy constraint was reached for all patients with both methods. The values were lower with HT than with 3D-RT in 5 of 7 children, equal in one patient and higher in one patient. The organ-at-risk volumes receiving low doses were significantly lower with 3D-RT but larger for the highest doses, compared to those irradiated with HT. The integral doses were not different.

Conclusions

IMRT with HT allows a better conformity treatment, a more frequently acceptable PTV-V95% than 3D-RT and, concomitantly, a better shielding of the kidneys. The integral doses are comparable between both techniques but consideration of differences in dose distribution between the two techniques, for the organs at risk, has to be taken in account when validating treatment.

Keywords:
Neuroblastoma; IMRT; 3D-RT; Tomotherapy; Dosimetry