title: Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT): differences in target volumes and improvement in clinically relevant doses to small bowel in rectal carcinoma.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  A strong dose-volume relationship exists between the amount of small bowel receiving low- to intermediate-doses of radiation and the rates of acute, severe gastrointestinal toxicity, principally diarrhea. There is considerable interest in the application of highly conformal treatment approaches, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), to reduce dose to adjacent organs-at-risk in the treatment of carcinoma of the rectum. Therefore, we performed a comprehensive dosimetric evaluation of IMRT compared to 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) in standard, preoperative treatment for rectal cancer.
  
  
  METHODS
  Using RTOG consensus anorectal contouring guidelines, treatment volumes were generated for ten patients treated preoperatively at our institution for rectal carcinoma, with IMRT plans compared to plans derived from classic anatomic landmarks, as well as 3DCRT plans treating the RTOG consensus volume. The patients were all T3, were node-negative (N = 1) or node-positive (N = 9), and were planned to a total dose of 45-Gy. Pairwise comparisons were made between IMRT and 3DCRT plans with respect to dose-volume histogram parameters.
  
  
  RESULTS
  IMRT plans had superior PTV coverage, dose homogeneity, and conformality in treatment of the gross disease and at-risk nodal volume, in comparison to 3DCRT. Additionally, in comparison to the 3DCRT plans, IMRT achieved a concomitant reduction in doses to the bowel (small bowel mean dose: 18.6-Gy IMRT versus 25.2-Gy 3DCRT; p = 0.005), bladder (V40Gy: 56.8% IMRT versus 75.4% 3DCRT; p = 0.005), pelvic bones (V40Gy: 47.0% IMRT versus 56.9% 3DCRT; p = 0.005), and femoral heads (V40Gy: 3.4% IMRT versus 9.1% 3DCRT; p = 0.005), with an improvement in absolute volumes of small bowel receiving dose levels known to induce clinically-relevant acute toxicity (small bowel V15Gy: 138-cc IMRT versus 157-cc 3DCRT; p = 0.005). We found that the IMRT treatment volumes were typically larger than that covered by classic bony landmark-derived fields, without incurring penalty with respect to adjacent organs-at-risk.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  For rectal carcinoma, IMRT, compared to 3DCRT, yielded plans superior with respect to target coverage, homogeneity, and conformality, while lowering dose to adjacent organs-at-risk. This is achieved despite treating larger volumes, raising the possibility of a clinically-relevant improvement in the therapeutic ratio through the use of IMRT with a belly-board apparatus.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas, M,D, Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
authors.forename: Henry
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Mok
authors.forename: Christopher H
authors.initials: CH
authors.lastname: Crane
authors.forename: Matthew B
authors.initials: MB
authors.lastname: Palmer
authors.forename: Tina M
authors.initials: TM
authors.lastname: Briere
authors.forename: Sam
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Beddar
authors.forename: Marc E
authors.initials: ME
authors.lastname: Delclos
authors.forename: Sunil
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Krishnan
authors.forename: Prajnan
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Das
mesh_terms: D000230:Adenocarcinoma / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D002277:Carcinoma / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D004307:Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D021621:Imaging, Three-Dimensional; D007421:Intestine, Small / Q000528:radiation effects*; D008207:Lymphatic Metastasis; D008297:Male; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D011835:Radiation Protection / Q000379:methods; D011874:Radiometry / Q000379:methods*; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated / Q000379:methods*; D012004:Rectal Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*