Journal of Medical Physics
 Home | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Subscription | Login  The official journal of Association of Medical Physicists of India      
 Users online: 364  Home  EMail this page Print this page Decrease font size Default font size Increase font size 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2009  |  Volume : 34  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 66-72

Static versus dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy: Profile of integral dose in carcinoma of the nasopharynx


Department of Radiation Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi-110 029, India

Correspondence Address:
K S Jothybasu
Department of Radiotherapy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi-110 029
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0971-6203.51932

Rights and Permissions

This study is aimed to evaluate the impact of static and dynamic intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivery techniques planned with Eclipse TPS on the integral dose to the healthy normal tissue surrounding the tumor-bearing area and to the volume receiving doses <5 Gy in patients with carcinoma nasopharynx treated with Simultaneous Integrated Boost IMRT (SIB-IMRT). Ten patients with carcinoma nasopharynx were chosen for this dosimetric study. IMRT plans were generated with 6X using dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) and static multileaf collimator (SMLC) with 5, 10 and 15 intensity levels (L). Integral dose, volume receiving 5 Gy, number of monitor units (MU) is compared against DMLC. The mean difference in the MU delivered per fraction between 5, 10 and 15 L SMLC and DMLC was -13.25% ( P < 0.001, with paired t test), -11.82% ( P < 0.001) and -10.81% ( P < 0.001), respectively. The mean difference in the integral dose with 5, 10 and 15 L compared to DMLC was -2.96% ( P < 0.001), -2.67% ( P = 0.016) and -0.39% ( P = 0.430), respectively. However, the difference in low-dose volume (V5Gy) was statistically insignificant with mean difference of 0.60% ( P = 0.23), 1.18% ( P = 0.017) and 1.70% ( P = 0.078), respectively for 5, 10 and 15 L compared to DMLC. Our results show that while choosing the IMRT delivery technique using conventional MLC the concerns about integral dose and volume receiving very low doses such as 5 Gy can be ignored.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3603    
    Printed146    
    Emailed5    
    PDF Downloaded414    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal