dc.contributor.author | Seravalli, E | |
dc.contributor.author | Bosman, M | |
dc.contributor.author | Lassen-Ramshad, Y | |
dc.contributor.author | Vestergaard, A | |
dc.contributor.author | Oldenburger, F | |
dc.contributor.author | Visser, J | |
dc.contributor.author | Koutsouveli, E | |
dc.contributor.author | Paraskevopoulou, C | |
dc.contributor.author | Horan, G | |
dc.contributor.author | Ajithkumar, T | |
dc.contributor.author | Timmermann, B | |
dc.contributor.author | Fuentes, C-S | |
dc.contributor.author | Whitfield, G | |
dc.contributor.author | Marchant, T | |
dc.contributor.author | Padovani, L | |
dc.contributor.author | Garnier, E | |
dc.contributor.author | Gandola, L | |
dc.contributor.author | Meroni, S | |
dc.contributor.author | Hoeben, BAW | |
dc.contributor.author | Kusters, M | |
dc.contributor.author | Alapetite, C | |
dc.contributor.author | Losa, S | |
dc.contributor.author | Goudjil, F | |
dc.contributor.author | Magelssen, H | |
dc.contributor.author | Evensen, ME | |
dc.contributor.author | Saran, F | |
dc.contributor.author | Smyth, G | |
dc.contributor.author | Rombi, B | |
dc.contributor.author | Righetto, R | |
dc.contributor.author | Kortmann, R-D | |
dc.contributor.author | Janssens, GO | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-04-30T13:36:02Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2018-09 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 2018, 57 (9), pp. 1240 - 1249 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0284-186X | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://repository.icr.ac.uk/handle/internal/1662 | |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1651-226X | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1080/0284186x.2018.1465588 | |
dc.description.abstract | PURPOSE:Conventional techniques (3D-CRT) for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) are still widely used. Modern techniques (IMRT, VMAT, TomoTherapy®, proton pencil beam scanning [PBS]) are applied in a limited number of centers. For a 14-year-old patient, we aimed to compare dose distributions of five CSI techniques applied across Europe and generated according to the participating institute protocols, therefore representing daily practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS:A multicenter (n = 15) dosimetric analysis of five different techniques for CSI (3D-CRT, IMRT, VMAT, TomoTherapy®, PBS; 3 centers per technique) was performed using the same patient data, set of delineations and dose prescription (36.0/1.8 Gy). Different treatment plans were optimized based on the same planning target volume margin. All participating institutes returned their best treatment plan applicable in clinic. RESULTS:The modern radiotherapy techniques investigated resulted in superior conformity/homogeneity-indices (CI/HI), particularly in the spinal part of the target (CI: 3D-CRT:0.3 vs. modern:0.6; HI: 3D-CRT:0.2 vs. modern:0.1), and demonstrated a decreased dose to the thyroid, heart, esophagus and pancreas. Dose reductions of >10.0 Gy were observed with PBS compared to modern photon techniques for parotid glands, thyroid and pancreas. Following this technique, a wide range in dosimetry among centers using the same technique was observed (e.g., thyroid mean dose: VMAT: 5.6-24.6 Gy; PBS: 0.3-10.1 Gy). CONCLUSIONS:The investigated modern radiotherapy techniques demonstrate superior dosimetric results compared to 3D-CRT. The lowest mean dose for organs at risk is obtained with proton therapy. However, for a large number of organs ranges in mean doses were wide and overlapping between techniques making it difficult to recommend one radiotherapy technique over another. | |
dc.format | Print-Electronic | |
dc.format.extent | 1240 - 1249 | |
dc.language | eng | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 | |
dc.subject | Humans | |
dc.subject | Radiotherapy Dosage | |
dc.subject | Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted | |
dc.subject | Radiometry | |
dc.subject | Radiation Oncology | |
dc.subject | Adolescent | |
dc.subject | Advisory Committees | |
dc.subject | Europe | |
dc.subject | Male | |
dc.subject | Organs at Risk | |
dc.subject | Craniospinal Irradiation | |
dc.subject | Practice Patterns, Physicians' | |
dc.title | Dosimetric comparison of five different techniques for craniospinal irradiation across 15 European centers: analysis on behalf of the SIOP-E-BTG (radiotherapy working group). | |
dc.type | Journal Article | |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2018-04-08 | |
rioxxterms.versionofrecord | 10.1080/0284186x.2018.1465588 | |
rioxxterms.licenseref.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 | |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2018-09 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | |
dc.relation.isPartOf | Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) | |
pubs.issue | 9 | |
pubs.notes | No embargo | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR | |
pubs.organisational-group | /ICR | |
pubs.publication-status | Published | |
pubs.volume | 57 | |
pubs.embargo.terms | No embargo | |
dc.contributor.icrauthor | Smyth, Gregory | |