%0 Journal Article
%T Dosimetric Study of Coplanar and Non-Coplanar Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Planning for Esophageal Carcinoma
%A Ying Li
%A Bing Liu
%A Fushan Zhai
%A Yongfeng Yang
%A Ming Liu
%A Chaoen Bao
%A Qingxiang Zhou
%J International Journal of Medical Physics,Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology
%P 133-138
%@ 2168-5444
%D 2013
%I Scientific Research Publishing
%R 10.4236/ijmpcero.2013.24018
%X <span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\"><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\">Purpose:</span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\"> To compare the dosimetric impact of coplanar intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and non-copla</span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\">nar IMRT for the esophageal carcinoma. Methods: There are forty-five esophageal carcinoma patients</span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\">, </span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\">fifteen of whom were cervical and upper thoracic (Group 1) and thirty were middle and lower thoracic (Group 2). G<span>ross tumor volume (GTV), </span>clinical target volume (CTV), and organs at risk (OAR) were contoured by </span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\">the </span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\">chief physician in the CMS-XiO treatment planning system. For each patient, one coplanar plan and two non-coplanar plans have been created using the same physical objective function. A detailed dose-volume histogram (DVH) comparison among three plans was then carried out in a tabulated format. Results: 1) In Group 1 patients with PTV volume less than 100cc, the mean dose and dose gradient of non-coplanar plan were much better than those in coplanar plan. 2) In Group 2 patients, the conformity index (CI) for coplanar and two non-coplanar plans were 0.69</span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\">¡À</span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\">0.13, 0.41</span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\">¡À</span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\">0.13, and 0.68</span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\">¡À</span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\">0.15, respectively. The V5, V1<span>0, V20, and the mean dose to the lung were lower in the non-coplanar plans compared to</span></span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\">ones in coplanar plan. However, the non-coplanar plans resulted in an increase in </span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\">a </span><span style=\"font-family:;font-size:10pt;\">dose to the heart, but the dose was still within heart toxicity tolerance. Conclusion: For Group 1 patients, the
%K Esophageal Carcinoma
%K Coplanar IMRT
%K Non-Coplanar IMRT
%U http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=38617