Comparison of coplanar and noncoplanar intensity-modulated radiation therapy and helical tomotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

CCUR > College of Kinesiology and Health > Graduate Institute of Sport Coaching Science > journal articles > Item 987654321/20990

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://irlib.pccu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/20990

Title:	Comparison of coplanar and noncoplanar intensity-modulated radiation therapy and helical tomotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma
Authors:	Hsieh, CH (Hsieh, Chen-Hsi) Liu, CY (Liu, Chia-Yuan) Shueng, PW (Shueng, Pei-Wei) Chong, NS (Chong, Ngot-Swan) Chen, CJ (Chen, Chih-Jen) Chen, MJ (Chen, Ming-Jen) Lin, CC (Lin, Ching-Chung) Wang, TE (Wang, Tsang-En) Lin, SC (Lin, Shee-Chan) Tai, HC (Tai, Hung-Chi) Tien, HJ (Tien, Hui-Ju) Chen, KH (Chen, Kuo-Hsin) Wang, LY (Wang, Li-Ying) Hsieh, YP (Hsieh, Yen-Ping) Huang, DYC (Huang, David Y. C.) Chen, YJ (Chen, Yu-Jen)
Contributors:	運教所
Keywords:	PORTAL-VEIN-THROMBOSIS INDUCED LIVER-DISEASE 3-DIMENSIONAL CONFORMAL RADIOTHERAPY LOCAL RADIOTHERAPY CANCER STATISTICS HEPATIC TOXICITY TREATMENT PLANS TUMOR THROMBUS IRRADIATION METASTASES
Date:	2010-12
Issue Date:	2011-12-12 11:07:26 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	Background: To compare the differences in dose-volume data among coplanar intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), noncoplanar IMRT, and helical tomotherapy (HT) among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal vein thrombosis (PVT). Methods: Nine patients with unresectable HCC and PVT underwent step and shoot coplanar IMRT with intent to deliver 46 - 54 Gy to the tumor and portal vein. The volume of liver received 30Gy was set to keep less than 30% of whole normal liver (V30 < 30%). The mean dose to at least one side of kidney was kept below 23 Gy, and 50 Gy as for stomach. The maximum dose was kept below 47 Gy for spinal cord. Several parameters including mean hepatic dose, percent volume of normal liver with radiation dose at X Gy (Vx), uniformity index, conformal index, and doses to organs at risk were evaluated from the dose-volume histogram. Results: HT provided better uniformity for the planning-target volume dose coverage than both IMRT techniques. The noncoplanar IMRT technique reduces the V10 to normal liver with a statistically significant level as compared to HT. The constraints for the liver in the V30 for coplanar IMRT vs. noncoplanar IMRT vs. HT could be reconsidered as 21% vs. 17% vs. 17%, respectively. When delivering 50 Gy and 60-66 Gy to the tumor bed, the constraints of mean dose to the normal liver could be less than 20 Gy and 25 Gy, respectively. Conclusion: Noncoplanar IMRT and HT are potential techniques of radiation therapy for HCC patients with PVT. Constraints for the liver in IMRT and HT could be stricter than for 3DCRT.
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Sport Coaching Science ] journal articles

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
index.html		0Kb	HTML	641	View/Open

Loading...