Three Melodies for Solo Vibraphone Recital performed by Cory Bracken, Percussionist Brooklyn College Studio 312 in Roosevelt Hall, Bedford Ave. Brooklyn, NY Authors: Lyon, E. Publication date: 27 Oct 2011

Thursday, October 27 · 7:00pm - 8:00pm
Location
Brooklyn College
Studio 312 in Roosevelt Hall, Bedford Ave.
Brooklyn, NY
Created By
Cory Bracken

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy reduces lung irradiation in patients with carcinoma of the oesophagus.

The 2-year survival rate after conventional radiotherapy for carcinoma of the oesophagus is around 10–20% [8]. Concomitant chemoradiation schedules have produced survival figures of 25–30% at 5 years, and this is now considered standard treatment [1]. Conformal radiotherapy techniques offer the potential to deliver higher doses of radiation to oesophageal tumours [5], and this may improve local tumour control. However, concerns regarding late normal tissue damage to the lung parenchyma and spinal cord remain a concern. Intensitymodulated radiotherapy (IMRT) allows complex dose distributions to be produced, and can reduce the dose to radiosensitive organs close to the tumour [2]. The present study was designed to investigate the impact of beam intensity modulation on treatment planning for carcinoma of the oesophagus, by comparing a standard three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) technique to an IMRT technique using the same number and orientation of treatment fields.

A comparison of conformal and intensity-modulated techniques for oesophageal radiotherapy.

Background and purpose: To investigate the potential of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) to reduce lung irradiation in the treatment of oesophageal carcinoma with radical radiotherapy.Materials and methods: A treatment planning study was performed to compare two-phase conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) with IMRT in five patients. The CFRT plans consisted of anterior, posterior and bilateral posterior oblique fields, while the IMRT plans consisted of either nine equispaced fields (9F), or four fields (4F) with orientations equal to the CFRT plans. IMRT plans with seven, five or three equispaced fields were also investigated in one patient. Treatment plans were compared using dose-volume histograms and normal tissue complication probabilities.Results: The 9F IMRT plan was unable to improve on the homogeneity of dose to the planning target volume (PTV), compared with the CFRT plan (dose range, 16.9+/-4.5 (1 SD) vs. 12.4+/-3.9%; P=0.06). Similarly, the 9F IMRT plan was unable to reduce the mean lung dose (11.7+/-3.2 vs. 11.0+/-2.9 Gy; P=0.2). Similar results were obtained for seven, five and three equispaced fields in the single patient studied. The 4F IMRT plan provided comparable PTV dose homogeneity with the CFRT plan (11.8+/-3.3 vs. 12.4+/-3.9%; P=0.6), with reduced mean lung dose (9.5+/-2.3 vs 11.0+/-2.9 Gy; P=0.001).Conclusions: IMRT using nine equispaced fields provided no improvement over CFRT. This was because the larger number of fields in the IMRT plan distributed a low dose over the entire lung. In contrast, IMRT using four fields equal to the CFRT fields offered an improvement in lung sparing. Thus, IMRT with a few carefully chosen field directions may lead to a modest reduction in pneumonitis, or allow tumour dose escalation within the currently accepted lung toxicity.