We compared the effect of set-up error and uncertainty on two radiation therapy treatment plans for head and neck cancer: one using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and one using conventional three-dimensional conformai radiation therapy (3D-CRT). We used a Pinnacle3 (Philips Medical Systems, Markham, Ontario) system to create the two treatment plans (7-beam IMRT and 5-beam 3D-CRT) for the same volumetric data set, based on the objectives and constraints defined in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group H-0022 protocol. In both plans, the dose-volume constraints for the targets and the organs at risk (OARS) were met as closely as the beam geometries would allow. Monte Carlo-based simulations of set-up error and uncertainty were performed in three orthogonal directions for 840 simulated "courses of treatment" for each plan. A systematic error (chosen from distributions characterized by standard deviations ranging from 0 mm to 6 mm) and random uncertainties (2 mm standard deviation) were incorporated. We used a probability approach to compare the sensitivities of the IMRT and the 3D-CRT plans to set-up error and uncertainty in terms of equivalent uniform dose (EUD) to targets and OARS. Based on the EUD analysis, the targets and OARS showed considerably greater sensitivity to set-up error with the IMRT plan than with the 3 D-CRT plan. For the IMRT plan, target EUDS were reduced by 4%, 7.5%, and 10% for 2-mm, 4-mm, and 6-mm set-up errors respectively. However, even with set-up error, the mandible, spinal cord, and parotid EUDS always remained lower with the IMRT plan than with the 3D-CRT plan. We conclude that, when quantified by EUD, IMRT-plan doses to OARS and targets are more sensitive to set-up error than are 3D-CRT-plan doses. However, as judged by the differences between target and OAR doses, IMRT retains its superiority over 3D-CRT, even in the presence of set-up error.
CITATION STYLE
Ploquin, N., Lau, H., & Dunscombe, P. (2006). Intensity modulated and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy plans for oropharyngeal cancer: A comparison of their sensitivity to set-up errors and uncertainties. Current Oncology, 13(2), 61–66. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol13020005
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.