EP-1655: Changes of Tumour Volume and Motion in Oesophageal Cancer During Radiotherapy Based on Repeated 4D-CT Scans

J.Z. Wang,J.B. Li,H.P. Qi,W. Wang,Y.J. Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-8140(15)41647-0
IF: 6.901
2015-01-01
Radiotherapy and Oncology
Abstract:3rd ESTRO Forum 2015 S907 field-in-field (FIFP) plan was addressed by Wilcoxon test.Endpoints selected were V95, V105, Maximum Dose within PTV, Maximum Dose.Results: We analyzed 33 patients.Overall, Patient mean setup errors were: Longitudinal (LNG) 4 mm; Lateral (LAT) 3 mm; Vertical (VRT) 3 mm.Values of misalignment of CMF versus FIF during the treatment delivery were as follows.Mean: LNG 0.8 (range 0-6; SD 0.11) mm, LAT 0.6 (range 0-7; SD 0.09) mm, VRT 0.8 (range 0-6; SD 0.11) mm.Median LNG 0 mm, LAT 0 mm, VRT 0 mm.A perfect matching of FIF to CMF (i.e.misalignment= 0 mm) was reported in 52.34% for LNG, 55.47% for LAT and 50.00%VRT for all analyzed patients overall.Misalignment of 1 mm was reported in 28.13% for LNG, 35.16% for LAT and 34.38% for VRT.Misalignment of 2 mm was reported in 10.16% for LNG, 7.03% for LAT and 10.16% for VRT.Misalignment of >3 mm was reported in 9.37% for LNG, 2.34% for LAT and 5.47% for VRT.The field-in-field plan was significantly superior to the conventional tangential one for V95 (p=0.003),Maximum Dose within PTV (p=0.033),Maximum Dose (p=0.002); it was not significantly superior for V105 (p=0.201)although the mean V105 value was overall inferior for the field-in field plan (4.01%field-in-field plan vs 4.42% conventional) Conclusions: Adjuvant radiotherapy with field-in-field technique seems useful to optimize the planning, without major drawbacks for the RTT routine practice and presents a good geometrical stability during the delivery.The presented evaluation, offers, with the collaboration of the RTTs a source of information to deepen geometrical, setup and planning issues and stimulate the cooperation between clinicians, RTT and physics.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?