Involved-nodal radiation therapy leads to lower doses to critical organs-at-risk compared to involved-field radiation therapy
Radiotherapy and Oncology
Hodgkin lymphoma; INRT; Involved nodal radiation therapy
©2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology. Background Involved field radiotherapy (IFRT) after cytotoxic chemotherapy has become the standard of care in treating pediatric patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. However, recent interest in shrinking the treatment volume to involved node radiotherapy (INRT) may allow lower doses to critical organ structures. We dosimetrically compared IFRT and INRT treatment approaches.Methods INRT treatment plans were retrospectively constructed from 17 consecutively treated pediatric patients identified with Hodgkin lymphoma who had been previously treated with conventional IFRT. The radiation doses delivered to organs-at-risk (OARs) with virtual INRT treatment plans based on INRT field design were then compared to the original IFRT treatment plans. Metrics for comparison included mean doses to organs and volumes of organ receiving at least 50% of the original prescription dose (V50%). A one-tailed, paired t-test was then performed to verify statistical significance at an alpha level of 0.05.Results All organs at risk compared in this investigation (kidneys, heart, thyroid, parotids, and lungs) had significantly lower doses of radiation with INRT when compared to IFRT (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the volume of the breast receiving at least 50% of the initial prescription dose was statistically lower in the INRT plans.Conclusions Utilizing the concept of INRT results in a reduction of radiation dose to critical organ structures in pediatric patients with Hodgkin lymphoma when compared to the more traditional method of IFRT.
Mulvihill, D., McMichael, K., Goyal, S., Drachtman, R., Weiss, A., & Khan, A. (2014). Involved-nodal radiation therapy leads to lower doses to critical organs-at-risk compared to involved-field radiation therapy. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 112 (2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2014.06.018