Dosimetric comparison between coplanar and non coplanar field radiotherapy for ethmoid sinus cancer.
BACKGROUND
To compare non coplanar field (NCF) with coplanar field (CF) -intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) planning for ethmoid cancer.


METHODS
Seven patients treated with NCF IMRT for ethmoid cancer were studied. A CF IMRT optimization was prepared with the same constraints as for the NCF treatment. The maximum point doses (D max) obtained for the different optic pathway structures (OPS) should differ no more than 3% from those achieved with the NCF IMRT plan. The distribution of the dose in the target volume and in the critical structures was compared between the two techniques, as well as the Conformity (CI) and the Homogeneity Indexes (HI) in the target volume.


RESULTS
We noted no difference between the two techniques in the OPS for the D1, D2, and D5%, in the inner ear and controlateral lens for the average Dmax, in the temporo-mandibular joints for the average mean dose, in the cord and brainstem for the average D1%. The dose-volume histograms were slightly better with the NCF treatment plan for the planning target volume (PTV) with a marginally better HI but no impact on CI. We found a great improvement in the PTV coverage with the CF treatment plan for two patients with T4 tumors.


CONCLUSIONS
IMRT is one of the treatment options for ethmoid cancer. The PTV coverage is optimal without compromising the protection of the OPS. The impact of non coplanar versus coplanar set up is very slight.
Serre
Antoine
A
Department of Radiation Oncology, Val d'Aurelle Cancer Institute, Montpellier, France. Antoine.Serre@valdorel.fnclcc.fr
Idri
Katia
K
Fenoglietto
Pascal
P
Ailleres
Norbert
N
Santoro
Lore
L
Lemanski
Claire
C
Garrel
Renaud
R
Makeieff
Marc
M
Allaw
Ali
A
Dubois
Jean-Bernard
JB
Azria
David
D