Indian Journal of Cancer
Home  ICS  Feedback Subscribe Top cited articles Login 
Users Online :513
Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Navigate Here
 »   Next article
 »   Previous article
 »   Table of Contents

Resource Links
 »   Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
 »   Citation Manager
 »   Access Statistics
 »   Reader Comments
 »   Email Alert *
 »   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded51    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Year : 2020  |  Volume : 57  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 388-392

Is 9-field IMRT superior to 7-field IMRT in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma?

1 Department of Radiation Physics, Oncology and Hematology Hospital, Maadi Armed Forces Medical Compound, Cairo, Egypt
2 Department of Radiotherapy, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
3 Department of Oncology, Medical Research Institute, Alexandria University, Giza, Egypt
4 Department of Biophysics, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Mohamed S Ibrahim
Department of Radiation Physics, Oncology and Hematology Hospital, Maadi Armed Forces Medical Compound, Cairo
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_555_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: To evaluate the pros and cons of 9-field intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared to 7-field IMRT in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods: Ten NPC patients were treated with 7F-IMRT and 9F-IMRT. A dose prescription of 70 Gy was delivered in 35 fractions to gross planning target volume (PTV1). Plan verification was performed via 2D-array and film dosimetry. Dose-Volume Histogram (DVH) parameters were used to evaluate the quality of IMRT plans. Results: Dose data for the investigated planning techniques obeyed the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) protocol no. 0615. The dose delivered to PTV1 and organs-at-risk (OARs) for 9F-IMRT was significantly better than 7F-IMRT, except for OARs which were at a distance from PTV1, such as eyes, optical nerves, and chiasma. Ninety five percent of PTV1 was covered by more than 95% of the prescribed dose (67.75 ± 1.1 Gy and 68.57 ± 1.2 Gy for 7F-IMRT and 9F-IMRT, respectively). The maximum dose to 1% of brainstem was 50.06 ± 2.7 Gy and 47.75 ± 2.6 Gy for 7F-IMRT and 9F-IMRT, respectively. Dose verification showed good agreement with treatment planning system with a maximum deviation for 2D-array of 2.16% ± 0.86 and 1.73% ± 0.33 for 7F-IMRT and 9F-IMRT, respectively. Similarly, radiochromic film reported maximum dose deviations of 3.38% ± 1.68 and 2.77% ± 1.3, respectively. Conclusion: 9F-IMRT provides better homogenous dose to PTV1 and more sparing of OARs over 7F-IMRT for NPC patients, except for OARs which are are a distance from PTV1.


Print this article     Email this article

  Site Map | What's new | Copyright and Disclaimer
  Online since 1st April '07
  © 2007 - Indian Journal of Cancer | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow