IMRT in the treatment of head and neck cancer: is the present already the future?

References

• Convery DJ, Rosenbloom ME. The generation of intensity modulated fields for conformal radiotherapy by dynamic collimation. Phys. Med. Bid 37, 1359–1374 (1992).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ••Reference publication about the so-calleddynamic modulation technique or sliding window, to realize IMRT.
   Google Scholar
• Spirou S, Chui C. Generation of arbitrary intensity profiles by dynamic jaws or multileaf collimators. Med. Phys. 21, 1031–1041 (1994).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaltman P, Lind B, Eklof A et aZ Shaping of arbitrary dose distributions by dynamic multeleaf collimation. Phys Med. Bid 33, 1291–1300 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Svensson R, Kaltman P, Brahme A. An analytical solution for the dynamic control of multileaf collimators. Phys. Med. Biol. 39, 37–61 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• •Reference publication about the so-called dynamic modulation technique or sliding window, to realin-
   Google Scholar
• Geis P, Boyer AL. Use of a mulatileaf collimator as a dynamic missing-tissue compensator. Med Phys 23, 1199–1205 (1996).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bortfeld TR, Kahler DL, Waldron TJ et al. X-ray field compensation with multileaf collimators. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys.28, 723–730 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• •Another reference publication of the so-called 'Bortfeld technique' for intensity moduhated beam segmentation, origin of the step and shoot IMRT technique.
   Google Scholar
• Xia 1 Verhey U. Multileaf collimator leaf sequencing algorithm for intensity modulated beams with multiple static segments. Med Phys. 25, 1424–1434 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Webb S. Configuration options for intensity-modulated radiation therapy using multiple static fields shaped by a multileaf collimator. Phys. Med. Biol. 43, 241–260 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Madde TR, Holmes T, Swerdloff S et d Tomotherapy: a new concept for the delivery of dynamic conformal radiotherapy. Med Phys. 20, 1709–1719 (1993).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yu CDC Intensity-modulated arc therapy with dynamic multileaf collimation: an alternative to tomotherapy. Phys Med Bid 40, 1435–1449 (1995).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rowbottom CG, Nutting CM, Webb S. Beam-orientation optimization of intensity-modulated radiotherapy: clinical application to parotid gland tumors. Radiother. Oncol. 59, 169–77 (2001)
   Google Scholar
• Wu Q, Mohan R Algorithms and functionality of an intensity modulated radiotherapy optimization system. Med. Phys. 27, 701–711 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Wagter C, Colle CO, Fortan LG, Van Duyse BB, Van den Berge DL, De Neve WJ. 3D conformal intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning: interactive optimization by constrained matrix inversion. Radiothen Oncd 47, 69–76 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Hristov DH, Fallone BG. An active set algorithm for treatment planning optimization. Med. Phys. 24, 1455–1464 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Siebers JV, Tong S, Lauterbach M, Wu Q, Mohan R Acceleration of dose calculations for intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Med. Phys. 28, 903–910 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Watanabe Y Point dose calculations using an analytical pencil beam kernel for IMRT plan checking. Phys. Med Biol. 46, 1031–1038 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Laub W, Alber M, Birkner M, Nusslin E Monte Carlo dose computation for IMRT optimization. Phys Med Biol. 45, 1741–1754 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boyer AL, Geis P, Grant W Carol M. Modulated beam conformal therapy for head and neck tumors. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Bid Phys. 39, 227–236 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dirkx ML, Heijmen BJ, van Santvoort JP Leaf trajectory calculation for dynamic multileaf collimation to realize optimized fluence profiles. Phys. Med. Biol. 43, 1171–1184 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Gersem W Claus F, De Wagter C, De Neve W An anatomy-based beam segmentation tool for intensity-modulated radiation therapy and its application to head-and-neck cancer. Int. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 51, 849–859 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Bratengeier K. Applications of two-step intensity modulated arc therapy. Strahlenther. OnkoZ 177, 394 403 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Keller -Reichenbecher MA, Bortfeld T, Levegrun S, Stein J, Preiser K, Schlegel W Intensity modulation with the step and shoot technique using a commercial MLC: a planning study. Multileaf collimator. Int. Radiat. Oncol. Bid Phys. 45, 1315–1324 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brahme A. Optimisation of radiation therapy. mnt.j Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys.28, 785–787 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• ••One of the key articles about IMRTfundamentals. A must for people approaching the subject.
   Google Scholar
• Webb S. Optimization by simulated annealing of three-dimensional treatment planning for radiation fields defined by a multileaf collimator. Phys. Med. Biol. 36, 1201–1226 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cozzi L, Fogliata A, Lomax A, Bolsi A. A treatment planning comparison of 3D conformal therapy, intensity modulated photon therapy and proton therapy for treatment of advanced head and neck tumors. Radiother. Oncol. 61, 287–297 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• ••Comparative study at planning level onpotentialities of IMRT and proton therapy for head and neck for five patients affected by advanced (stage III and IV) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck The study indicates that organs at risk sparing can be highly improved with IMRT (and even better with protons) leaving wide space for dose-escalation and/or concomitant boost.
   Google Scholar
• Wu Q, Manning M, Schmidt-Ullrich R, Mohan R The potential for sparing of parotids and escalation of biologically effective dose with intensity-modulated radiation treatments of head and neck cancers: a treatment design study. Int. J. Radiat. °mot Bia Phys. 46, 195–205 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ••Treatment acceleration study carried outwith intensity modulation beam design (SIB) to escalate dose to the primary tumor site keeping acceptable treatment morbidity, in particular parotid functionality. Together with the Mohan paper, this constitues one of the fundamental papers regarding the new era of concomitant boost techniques open by IMRT.
   Google Scholar
• De Neve W, Claus F, Van Houtte Derycke S, De Wagter C. Intensity modulated radiotherapy with dynamic multileaf collimator. Technique and clinical experience. Cancer Radiother 3, 378–392 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Bortfeld T. Optimized Planning Using Physical Objectives and Constraints. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 9, 20–34 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ••Reference publication of the so-called'Bortfeld technique' for intensity modultated beam segmentation, origin of the step and shoot IMRT technique.
   Google Scholar
• Butler EB, Teh BS, Grant WH 3rd, et aZ. Smart (simultaneous modulated accelerated radiation therapy) boost: a new accelerated fractionation schedule for the treatment of head and neck cancer with intensity modulated radiotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Onca Biol. Phys. 45, 21–32 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• ••The idea and implementation of the concomitant boost scheme known as SMART were modulation and acceleration are combined to produce, in the aims of the study, a significant gain in local control without any unacceptable increase of side effects.
   Google Scholar
• MUTiC S, Dempsey JF, Bosch WR et al. Multimodality image registration quality assurance for conformal three-dimensional treatment planning. Int. J. Radiat. Onca Biol. Phys. 51, 255–260 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brahme A. Individualizing cancer treatment: biological optimization models in treatment planning and delivery. Int. J. Radiat. °mot Biol. Phys. 49, 327–337 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ••A speculative prediction, based on solidscientific knowledge, of the future or treatment optimization in radiotherapy. Concepts of biological and predicive assay-based optimization (BORT and AORT) are discussed in terms of their impact on expected tumor control and treatment morbidity.
   Google Scholar
• Tomsej M, Gregoire S, Vynckier S, Scalliet Sparing parotids and increasing conformity in laryngopharyngeal treatments: development of a new conformal technique, description of a complete quality assurance program and first results. Radiother OncoZ 61, Si 121 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Lopez Torrecilla J. The introduction of IMRT in the clinic Radiother. Onca 61, 51 69 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Chang J, Mageras GS, Chui CS et at Relative profile and dose verification of intensity modulated radiation therapy. Int. Radiat. °mot BioL Phys 47, 231–240 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Curtin-Savard AJ, Podgorsak EB. Verification of segmented beam delivery using a commercial electronic portal imaging device. Med Phys. 26, 737–742(1999).
   Google Scholar
• Low DA, Mutic S, Dempsey JF et aZ Quantitative dosimetric verification of an IMRT planning and delivery system. Radiother. Oncol. 49, 305–316 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• •Quality assurance in IMRT is deeply investigated in this paper in terms of dosimetric verification of the chain planning-delivery by one of the most active groups in head and neck.
   Google Scholar
• Xing L, Curran B, Hill R et id Dosimetric verification of a commercial inverse treatment planning system. Phys. Med Biol. 44, 463–478 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang X, Spirou S, LoSasso T et al. Dosimetric verification of intensity modulated fields. Med Phys. 23, 317–327 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Pasma KL, Dirkx ML, Kroonwijk M, VisserA, Heijmen BJ. Dosimetric verification of intensity modulated beams produced with dynamic multileaf collimation using an electronic portal imaging device Med. Phys. 26, 2373–2378 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Partridge M, Evans PM, Moshleh-Shirazi A, Convery D. Independent verification using portal imaging of intensity modulated beam delivery by the dynamic MLC technique. Med Phys. 25, 1872–1879 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Webb S. Conformal intemsity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivered by robotic linacs — testing IMRT to the limit? Phys. Med. Biol. 44, 1639–1654 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Tsai JS, Engler MJ, Ling MN et al. A non-invasive immobilization system and related quality assurance for dynamic intensity modulated radiation therapy of intracranial and head and neck disease. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 43, 455–467 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Phillips MH, Singer K, Miller E, Stelzer K. Commissioning an image-guided localization system for radiotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Bia Phys. 28, 267–276 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Chao KS, Low DA, Perez CA, Purdy JA. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy in head and neck cancers: The Mallinckrodt experience. Int. J. Cancer 90, 92–103 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohan R, Arnfield M, Tong S, Wu Q, Siebers J. The impact of fluctuations in intensity patterns on the number of monitor units and the quality and accuracy of intensity modulated radiotherapy. Med. Phys. 27, 1226–1237 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Ezzell GA, Chungbin S. The overshoot phenomenon in step-and-shoot IMRT delivery. Appl. Clin. Med Phys. 2, 138–148 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ma L, Boyer AL, Ma CM, Xing L. Synchronizing dynamic multileaf collimators for producing two-dimensional intensity-modulated fields with minimum beam delivery time. Int. J. Radiat. °mot Biol. Phys. 44, 1147–1154 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Verellen D, Linthout N, Storme G. Target localization and treatment verification for intensity modulated conformal radiation ctherapy of the head and neck region. The AZ-VUB experience. Akademisch Ziekenhuis-Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Strahlenther Onko/ 174\(Suppl. 2), 19–27 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Low DA, Chao KS, Mutic S, Gerber 'IL, Perez CA, Purdy JA. Quality assurance of serial tomotherapy for head and neck patient treatments. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol Biol Phys 42,681–692 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Verellen D, Linthout N, van den Berge D, Bel A, Storme G. Initial experience with intensity-modulated conformal radiation therapy for treatment of the head and neck region. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol Biol. Phys. 39, 99–114 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Grant WT, Woo SY. Clinical and financial issues for intenisy-modulated radiation therapy delivery. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 9, 99–107 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Emarni B, Lyman J, Brown A et at Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol Biol Phys. 21, 109–122 (1991).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ••Fundamental and largely uniquepublication on normal tissue tolerance. The majority of the ongoing studies and protocols are based on values reported by this publication. In our opinion, some of the numbers given needs updating and careful verification. The large research groups should invest time in publishing similarly comprehensive data collections.
   Google Scholar
• van Dieren EB, Nowak PJ, Wijers OB et al. Beam intensity modulation using tissue compensators or dynamic rnultileaf collimation in three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy of primary cancers of the oropharynx and larynx, including the elective neck Int. J. Radiat. Oncol Biol. Phys. 47,1299–1309 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• •Comparative study at planning level addresses the potential of IMRT in sparing parotids. As for similar studies the expected reduction of complications (NTCP reduced of about 7-49%) encouraged the group to start clinical treatment of patients in 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen AB, Hansen O, Jorgenson K et al. Influence of late side effects upon daily life after radiotherapy for laryngeal and phryngeal cancer. Acta Oncol 33,487–491 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marks JE, Davis CC. The effects of radiation on parotid salivary function. Int. Radiat. Oncol Biol. Phys. 7,1013–1019 (1981).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisbruch A, Kim HM, Terrell JE et al. Xerostomia and its predictors following parotid-sparing irradiation of head-and-neck cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol Biol. Phys. 50,695–704 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• •One of the most recent updates about side effect in head and neck treatment with IMRT published by the University of Michigan group who firstly started clinical treatments.
   Google Scholar
• Dawson LA, Anzai Y, Marsh L et al. Patterns of local-regional recurrence following parotid-sparing conformal and segmental intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Int. Radiat. Oncol Biol. Phys. 46,1117–1126 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisbruch A, Ten Haken RK, Kim HM, Marsh LH, Ship JA. Dose, volume and function relationships in parotid salivary glands following conformal and intensity-modulated irradiation of head and neck cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol Biol. Phys. 45, 577–587 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisbruch A, Marsh LH, Martel MK et al. Comprehensive irradiation of head and neck cancer using conformal multisegmental fields: assessment of target coverage and noninvolved tissue sparing. Int.j Radiat. Oncol Biol. Phys. 41,559–568 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ••Original paper from the University ofMichigan group about their experience in head and neck cancer treatment with IMRT. Salivary flow was preserved at a level of 60% after 3 months upon treatment completion.
   Google Scholar
• Marsh L, Eisbruch A, Watson B, Martel MK. Treatment planning for parotid sparing in the patient requiring bilateral neck irradiation. Med Dosim. 21,7–13 (1996).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fraass BA, Kessler ML, McShan DL et al. Optimization and clinical use of multisegment intensity-modulated radiation therapy for high-dose conformal therapy. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 9,60–77 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chao KS, Deasy JO, Markman J et al A prospective study of salivary function sparing in patients with head-and-neck cancers receiving intensity-modulated or three-dimensional radiation therapy: initial results. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol Biol. Phys. 49, 907–916 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ••Report of the initial experience of theMallinckrodt group on IMRT applied to head and neck cancer patients. In this study, data about 41 patients treated between 1997–1999 are reported. Twenty-seven were treated with IMRT. Authors found a correlation between saliva flow and mean dose delivered to the parotids with a decrease rate of about 4% per Gy.
   Google Scholar
• Mutic S, Low DA. Whole-body dose from tomotherapy delivery. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol Biol Phys. 42,229–232 (1998)
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chao KS, Bosch WR, Mutic S et al. A novel approach to overcome hypoxic tumor resistance: Cu-ATSM-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Int. J. Radiat. °neat Biol. Phys. 49, 1171–1182 (2001)
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xia P, Fu KK, Wong G, Akazawa C, Verhey L Comparison of treatment plans involving intensity modulated radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol Biol Phys. 48,329–337 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sultanem K, Shu HK, Xia P, Akazawa C, Quivey J, Verhey L, Fu KK. Three dimensional intensity modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: the university of California-San Francisco experience Int. Radiat. Oncol Biol. Phys. 48,711-722 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Kuppersmith RB, Teh BS, Donovan DT, Mai WY, Chiu JK, Woo SY, Butler EB. The use of intensity modulated radiotherapy for the treatment of extensive and recurrent juvenile angiofibroma. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 52,261–268 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Carol M, Grant WH 3rd, Pavord D et al. Initial clinical experience with the Peacock intensity modulation of a 3-D conformal radiation therapy system. Stereotact. Funct. 1Veurosurg. 66,30-34 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Mohan R, Wu Q, Manning M, Schmidt- Ullrich R Radiobiological considerations in the design of fractionation strategies for intensity-modulated radiation therapy of head and neck cancers. mnt.j Radiat. Oncol Biol. Phys. 46,619–630 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ••Treatment acceleration with comcomitantboost can be used to escalate dose to the primary tumor site keeping acceptable treatment morbidity, in particular parotid functionality. Together with the Wo paper, this study focused on radiobiological equivalences and constitues one of the fundamental papers regarding the new era of concomitant boost techniques open by IMRT.
   Google Scholar
• Wu Q, Mohan R, Morris M, Tong S, Schmidt-Ullrich R Simultaneous integrated boost IMRT of advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas using dynamic multi-leaf collimators. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Bia Phys. 51, 180 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• De Neve W De Wagter C, De Jaeger K et al. Planning and delivering high doses to targets surrounding the spinal cord at the lower neck and upper mediastinal levels: static beam-segmentation technique executed with a rnultileaf collimator. Radiother. Onca 40, 271–279 (1996).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Neve W De Gersem W Derycke S et al. Clinical delivery of intensity modulated conformal radiotherapy for relapsed or second-primary head and neck cancer using a rnultileaf collimator with dynamic control. Radiother. Onca 50, 301–314 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Claus F, Vakaet L, De Gersem Wet al. Postoperative radiotherapy of paranasal sinus tumors: a challenge for intensity modulated radiotherapy. Acta Otorhinolarynga Bek. 53, 263–269 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lomax A, Bortfeld T, Goitein G et al. A treatment planning inter-comparison of proton and intensity modulated photon radiotherapy. Radiother. Oncol. 51, 257–271 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ••One of the most interesting comparisonstudies at planning level published recently. Conventional 3-DCRT, IMRT and proton techniques were compared for several tumor sites indicating advantages of protons and IMRT with respect to other treatment techniques unable to generate concave dose distributions.
   Google Scholar
• Lomax AJ, Boehringer T, Coray A et al. Intensity modulated proton therapy: a clinical example. Med. Phys. 28, 317–324 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miralbell R, Cella L, Weber D, Lomax A. Optimizing radiotherapy of orbital and paraorbital tumors: intensity modulated x-ray beams vs. intensity-modulated proton beams. Int. J. Racliat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 47, 1111–1119 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar