La radiologia medica

, Volume 117, Issue 5, pp 885–891 | Cite as

Does weight loss predict accuracy of setup in head and neck cancer patients treated with Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy?

  • B. De Bari
  • M. Ait Erraisse
  • T. Chekrine
  • M. Rabilloud
  • I. Shakir Shakir
  • L. Lebras
  • V. Favrel
Radiotherapy / Radioterapia

Abstract

Purpose

This prospective study reports the impact of weight loss on setup of head and neck (H&N) cancer patients treated by Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT).

Materials and methods

Setup errors of H&N cancer patients treated by IMRT from January to June 2010 were prospectively analysed and statistically related to weight loss. A mixed linear model was used for statistical evaluations. Setup margins of our institute were also calculated.

Results

Twenty-two patients and 128 pairs of Electronic Portal Images (EPI) were analysed. Setup errors varied between −0.6 and +0.6, −0.7 and +0.8 and −0.2 and +0.8 in the anterior-posterior, superior-inferior and right-left direction, respectively. Median and mean weight loss were 2.1 and 3.1 kg (range 0–12 kg), respectively; median and mean percent of weight loss were 2.95% and 4.64% (range 0.3–19.7%), respectively. No statistical relation was seen between weight loss and the setup errors.

Conclusions

Weight loss is not a good clinical parameters for predicting an increase of setup errors. Other clinical and/or anthropometrical features should be prospectively evaluated in order to assess the need for re-planning.

Keywords

Adaptive radiotherapy Head and neck cancers IMRT Setup margins Weight loss 

Può la perdita di peso predire l’accuratezza del setup nei pazienti trattati con Radioterapia ad Intensità Modulata per un tumore della testa e del collo ?

Riassunto

Obiettivo

Questo studio prospettico valuta l’impatto della perdita di peso sul setup dei pazienti H&N trattati tramite Radioterapia ad Intensità Modulata (IMRT).

Materiali e Metodi

Gli errori di setup dei pazienti H&N trattati con IMRT dal 01/2010 al 06/2010 sono stati analizzati in maniera prospettica e correlati statisticamente alla perdita di peso. Un modello lineare misto è stato usato per l’analisi statistica. I margini di setup della nostra istituzione son stati calcolati e riportati.

Risultati

22 pazienti e 128 coppie di Immagini Portali (PI) sono stati analizzati. Gli errori di setup variavano tra −0,6 e +0,6, −0,7 e +0,8 e −0,2 e +0,8 cm, rispettivamente in direzione antero-posteriore, supero-inferiore and latero-laterale. La perdita mediana e media di peso sono state rispettivamente di 2,1 e 3,1 kg (range 0–12 kg), mentre la riduzione mediana e media di peso in % é stata rispettivamente di di 2,95% e 4,64% (range: 0,3%–19,7%). Nessuna relazione statistica tra la perdita di peso e gli errori di setup è stata messa in evidenza.

Conclusioni

La perdita di peso non è un buon parametro clinico per predire l’aumento degli errori di setup. Altri criteri clinici e/o antropomorfici devono essere valutati in maniera prospettica per stabilire la necessità di un replanning.

Parole chiave

Radioterapia adattativa Tumori della testa e del collo IMRT Margini di setup Perdita di peso 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References/Bibliografia

  1. 1.
    Barker JL Jr, Garden AS, Ang KK et al (2004) Quantification of volumetric and geometric changes occurring during fractionated radiotherapy for head-andneck cancer using an integrated CT/ linear accelerator system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 59:960–970PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chencharick JD, Mossman KL (1983) Nutritional consequences of the radiotherapy of head and neck cancer. Cancer 51:811–815PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keall P (2004) 4-dimensional computed tomography imaging and treatment planning. Semin Radiat Oncol 1:81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Height R, Khoo V, Lawford C et al (2010) The dosimetric consequences of anatomic changes in head and neck radiotherapy patients. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 54:497–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Loo H, Fairfoul J, Chakrabarti A et al (2011) Tumour shrinkage and contour change during radiotherapy increase the dose to organs at risk but not the target volumes for head and neck cancer patients treated on the TomoTherapy HiArt™ System. Clin Oncol 23:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Williams MV, Cooper T, Mackay R et al (2010) The implementation of intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the UK. Clin Oncol 22:623–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Staffurth on behalf of the Radiotherapy Development Board (2010) A review of the clinical evidence for intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Clin Oncol 22:643–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee N, Xia P, Fischbein NJ et al (2003) Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: the UCSF experience focusing on target volume delineation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 57:49–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wu Q, Manning M, Schmidt-Ullrich R, Mohan R (2000) 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 Oncol Biol Phys 46:195–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang D, Xia P, Akazawa P et al (2003) Comparison of treatment plans using intensity-modulated radiotherapy and three dimensional conformal radiotherapy for paranasal sinus carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:158–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Purdy JA (2004) Current ICRU definitions and volumes: limitations and future directions. Semin Radiat Oncol 1:27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grégoire V, Levendag P, Ang KK et al (2003) CT-based delineation of lymph node levels and related CTVs in the node-negative neck: DAHANCA, EORTC, GORTEC, NCIC, RTOG consensus guidelines. Radiother Oncol 69:227–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grégoire V, Eisbruch A, Hamoir M, Levendag P (2006) Proposal for the delineation of the nodal CTV in the node-positive and the post-operative neck. Radiother Oncol 79:15–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stroom JC, Heijmen BJM (2002) Geometrical uncertainties, radiotherapy planning margins, and the ICRU-62 report. Radiother Oncol 64:75–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van Herk M (2004) Errors and margins in radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 14:52–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Pignon JP, Le Maitre A, Maillard E, Bourhis J, on behalf of the MACH-NC Collaborative Group (2009) Metaanalysis of chemotherapy in head and neck cancer (MACH-NC): an update on 93 randomised trials and 17346 patients. Radioth Oncol 92:4–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johansen J, Bertelsen A, Hansen CR et al (2008) Set-up errors in patients undergoing image guided radiation treatment. Relationship to body mass index and weight loss. Acta Oncologica 47:1454–1458Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang C, Chong F, Wu J et al (2007) Body weight loss associates with set-up error in nasopharyngeal cancer patients undergoing image guided radiotherapy. Proceedings of the 49th Annual ASTRO Meeting. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69:S203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mercuri A, Lim Joon D, Wada M et al (2009) The effect of an intensive nutritional program on daily set-up variations and radiotherapy planning margins of head and neck cancer patients. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 53:500–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuo YC, Wu TH, Chung TS et al (2006) Effect of regression of enlarged neck lymph nodes on radiation doses received by parotid glands during intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 29:600–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wu Q, Chi Y, Chen PY et al (2009) Adaptive replanning strategies accounting for shrinkage in head and neck IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 75:924–932PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clavel S, Fortin B, Després P et al (2011) Enteral feeding during chemoradiotherapy for advanced headand-neck cancer: a single-institution experience using a reactive approach. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 79:763–769PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Elstrøm UV, Wysocka BA, Muren LP et al (2010) Daily kV cone-beam CT and deformable image registration as a method for studying dosimetric consequences of anatomic changes in adaptive IMRT of head and neck cancer. Acta Oncol 49:1101–1108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Beltran C, Krasin MJ, Merchant TE (2011) Inter- and intrafractional positional uncertainties in pediatric radiotherapy patients with brain and head and neck tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 79:1266–1274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. De Bari
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. Ait Erraisse
    • 1
    • 2
  • T. Chekrine
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. Rabilloud
    • 3
  • I. Shakir Shakir
    • 1
    • 2
  • L. Lebras
    • 1
    • 2
  • V. Favrel
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Département de Radiothérapie OncologieCentre Hospitalier Lyon SudPierre-BéniteFrance
  2. 2.EA3738Université Claude-BernardLyonFrance
  3. 3.Service de BiostatistiqueUniversité Lyon-SudPierre Bénite CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations