Challenges and Differences in External Radiation Therapy for Retinoblastoma: From Standard Techniques to New Developments

Aims The purpose of this study is to calculate the treatment plans and to compare the dose distributions and dose-volume histograms (DVH) for 6 external radiotherapy techniques for the treatment of retinoblastoma as well as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and fractionated stereotactic radiot...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Tumori Vol. 103; no. 5; pp. 438 - 442
Main Authors: Hiçsönmez, Ayşe, Güney, Yıldız, Dizman, Ayşen, Dirican, Bahar, Arslan, Yakup, Atakul, Tugba, Uysal, Hasan, Gündüz, Kaan, Taçyıldız, Nurdan, Ünal, Emel, Dinçaslan, Handan, Andrieu, Meltem Nalça
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01-09-2017
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aims The purpose of this study is to calculate the treatment plans and to compare the dose distributions and dose-volume histograms (DVH) for 6 external radiotherapy techniques for the treatment of retinoblastoma as well as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (Cyberknife). Methods Treatment plans were developed using 6 techniques, including an en face electron technique (ET), an anterior and lateral wedge photon technique (LFT), a 3D conformal (6 fields) technique (CRT), an inverse plan IMRT, tomotherapy, and conventional focal stereotactic external beam radiotherapy with Cyberknife (SBRT). Dose volume analyses were carried out for each technique. Results All techniques except electron provided similar target coverage. When comparing conformal plan with IMRT and SBRT, there was no significant difference in planning target volume dose distribution. The mean volume of ipsilateral bony orbit received more than 20 Gy, a suggested threshold for bone growth inhibition. The V20 Gy was 73% for the ET, 57% for the LFT, 87% for the CRT, 65% for the IMRT, 66% for the tomotherapy, and 2.7% for the SBRT. Conclusions This work supports the potential use of IMRT and SBRT to spare normal tissues in these patients.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0300-8916
2038-2529
DOI:10.5301/tj.5000406