Comparison of Doses to Parotid, Temporomandibular Joint, and Pharyngeal Constrictor Muscles Using Different Techniques in Radiotherapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer

Creative Commons License

Yamiç F., Koca T., Tunçel N., Aksoy R. A., Korcum Şahin A. F.

TECHNOLOGY IN CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, cilt.23, ss.1-7, 2024 (SCI-Expanded)

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 23
  • Basım Tarihi: 2024
  • Dergi Adı: TECHNOLOGY IN CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, BIOSIS, MEDLINE, Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1-7
  • Akdeniz Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Objective: The purpose of this research was to compare two treatment techniques for oropharyngeal cancers: conventional

linac-based static intensity-modulated radiotherapy (sIMRT) and helical tomotherapy (HT). The study examined several parameters,

including target coverage, organs at risk, integral dose, and beam on time. Additionally, the study evaluated the doses

to the parotid, temporomandibular joint, and pharyngeal constrictor muscles, which are important for swallowing. Method:

The present study retrospectively analyzed the data of 13 patients with oropharyngeal cancer who underwent radiotherapy

between 2019 and 2021. The treatment plans for each patient were regenerated using both sIMRT and HT treatment planning

systems with the sequential boost method. The techniques were evaluated and compared based on dose-volume histogram,

homogeneity index, and conformity index parameters. The target coverage and organs at risk were statistically compared for

two techniques. Additionally, the doses received by the healthy tissue volume were obtained for integral dose evaluation. The

beam on time for each technique was assessed. Results: When considering planning target volume evaluation, there was no difference

in Dmeans between the two techniques and sIMRT demonstrated higher D2% values compared to the HT. The HT technique

had better results for all organs at risk, such as the parotid, temporomandibular joint, and pharyngeal constrictor muscle.

As for integral dose, it has been shown that the sIMRT technique provides better protection compared to HT. In addition, the

beam on time was also longer with the HT technique. Conclusion: Both techniques may provide optimal target coverage for

patients with oropharyngeal cancer. HT conferred notable advantages, especially with regard to critical structures implicated in

swallowing, such as the parotid, temporomandibular joint, and pharyngeal constrictor muscle, in comparison to sIMRT.