A dosimetric study on the feasibility of using the anterior head and neck lymphatic drainage protection area for nasopharyngeal carcinoma intensity-modulated radiotherapy
黄 娟, 陈晓慧, 翟瑞萍. A dosimetric study on the feasibility of using the anterior head and neck lymphatic drainage protection area for nasopharyngeal carcinoma intensity-modulated radiotherapy[J]. China Oncology, 2018, 28(9): 692-697.
黄 娟, 陈晓慧, 翟瑞萍. A dosimetric study on the feasibility of using the anterior head and neck lymphatic drainage protection area for nasopharyngeal carcinoma intensity-modulated radiotherapy[J]. China Oncology, 2018, 28(9): 692-697. DOI: 10.19401/j.cnki.1007-3639.2018.09.008.
Background and purpose: Head and neck lymphedema (HNL) is a common side effect of intensitymodulated (IMRT) radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC)
but few studies have been reported. The purpose of this study was to explore a method to prevent or mitigate HNL after radiotherapy for NPC patients and to study its dosimetric feasibility. Methods: Two groups of plans were designed for 20 NPC patients. Plan A included simplified intensity-modulated radiotherapy (sIMRT) plans by conventional method
and plan B included sIMRT plans using the anterior head and neck lymphatic drainage protection area. Dose distributions of the target
dose-volume parameters of organs at risk (OAR) and the total monitor units (MU) were compared between the two groups. Results: The target dose distributions of the two groups all met the clinical requirements. The indicators of planning target volume 1 (PTV1) had no significant difference between the two groups. In plan A
D
98%
V
100%
(%)
V
95%
(%) and homogeneity index (HI) of PTV2 were superior to those in plan B (t=4.134
3.455
2.423 and -2.410
P0.05). D
mean
of left and right parotid gland and V
30
of left parotid gland in plan A were lower than those in plan B (t =-2.454
-2.113 and -4.651
P0.05). For oral cavity
D
mean
and V50 were higher in plan A (t=4.639 and 2.237
P0.05). Similarly
D
mean
and V
50
of larynx were also higher in plan A (t=10.934 and 4.624
P0.05). Compared with plan A
the total MU of plan B increased slightly
but the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: The plan design of the anterior head and neck lymphatic drainage protection is feasible in dosimetry for NPC patients. Without sacrificing the target coverage
a low-dose (20 Gy) lymphatic drainage area can be reserved to the front of head and neck while oral cavity and larynx are better protected.