title: Evaluation of integral dose in cranio-spinal axis (CSA) irradiation with conventional and helical delivery.
abstract: In cranio-spinal axis (CSA) irradiation, patients are usually treated in the prone position with junctions between cranial and spinal fields. Collimator angle and pedestal rotations are introduced to obtain coplanar alignment of the matched junction. Furthermore, daily moving junctions are commonly used to feather out the junctional dose as additional safeguards to avoid radiation myelopathy. Helical tomotherapy integrates linear accelerator and CT technology capable of delivering CSA treatment without geometric matches or feathering of junctions. The patient is treated with helical beams in the supine position. Since CSA is used mainly in the pediatric population, the potential increase in integral dose to structures or the whole body from linac- or tomotherapy-based IMRT raises concerns of increased rates of secondary malignancies. In this study, we will present an integral dose comparison between conventional CSA (3D) and helical delivery to the CSA (TOMO) utilizing the Tomotherapy Hi-ART system for three pediatric patients. Integral dose was calculated for organ at risk (OAR), two targets (PTV-BRAIN and PTV-SPINE), entire planning CT data set and to the healthy tissue (entire CT-DATA SET minus the PTV). Overall integral dose was 8% higher in the TOMO plans for Patients #1 and #3, but 2% lower in Patient #2. DVH analysis shows that TOMO plans give lower doses to larger volumes and higher doses to smaller volumes of tissue in all three cases. The advantages of the TOMO plans are minimization of matched junctions and better sparing of most OARs. With increased computational and memory power in the tomotherapy planning station, the excess integral dose to the healthy tissue can be re-distributed within the patient and in turn the total integral dose can be same or lower than in conventional delivery. The impact of a small increase in overall integral dose and the associated risks of secondary malignancies are unknown. Long-term follow-up is needed to answer this question.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, 72205, USA. PenagaricanoJoseA@uams.edu
authors.forename: José A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Peñagarícano
authors.forename: Chengyu
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Shi
authors.forename: Vancerat
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Ratanatharathorn
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D016543:Central Nervous System Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D002528:Cerebellar Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D002648:Child; D004806:Ependymoma / Q000532:radiotherapy; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008527:Medulloblastoma / Q000532:radiotherapy; D010315:Particle Accelerators; D054198:Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma / Q000532:radiotherapy; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; D020266:Radiotherapy, Conformal; D011882:Radiotherapy, High-Energy; D013125:Spinal Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*