4.7 Article

Effect of Dosimetric Factors on Occurrence and Volume of Temporal Lobe Necrosis Following Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Case-Control Study

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.05.036

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To determine dosimetric risk factors for the occurrence of temporal lobe necrosis (TLN) among nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to investigate the impact of dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters on the volume of TLN lesions (V-N). Methods and Materials: Forty-three NPC patients who had developed TLN following IMRT and 43 control subjects free of TLN were retrospectively assessed. DVH parameters included maximum dose (Dmax), minimum dose (Dmin), mean dose (Dmean), absolute volumes receiving specific dose (Vds) from 20 to 76 Gy (V20-V76), and doses covering certain volumes (Dvs) from 0.25 to 6.0 cm(3) (D0.25-D6.0). V-Ns were quantified with axial magnetic resonance images. Results: DVH parameters were ubiquitously higher in temporal lobes with necrosis than in healthy temporal lobes. Increased Vds and Dvs were significantly associated with higher risk of TLN occurrence (P < .05). In particular, Vds at a dose of >= 70 Gy were found with the highest odds ratios. A common increasing trend was detected between V-N and DVH parameters through trend tests (P for trend of < .05). Linear regression analysis showed that V45 had the strongest predictive power for V-N (adjusted R-2 = 0.305, P < .0001). V45 of < 15.1 cm(3) was relatively safe as the dose constraint for preventing large TLN lesions with V-N of > 5 cm(3). Conclusions: Dosimetric parameters are significantly associated with TLN occurrence and the extent of temporal lobe injury. To better manage TLN, it would be important to avoid both focal high dose and moderate dose delivered to a large area in TLs. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available