4.7 Review

Intensity modulated radiotherapy for sinonasal malignancies with a focus on optic pathway preservation

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY & ONCOLOGY
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1756-8722-6-4

Keywords

Intensity modulated radiotherapy; Sino-nasal malignancies; Optic toxicity; Blindness

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To assess if intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can possibly lead to improved local control and lower incidence of vision impairment/blindness in comparison to non-IMRT techniques when treating sinonasal malignancies; what is the most optimal dose constraints for the optic pathway; and the impact of different IMRT strategies on optic pathway sparing in this setting. Methods and materials: A literature search in the PubMed databases was conducted in July, 2012. Results: Clinical studies on IMRT and 2D/3D (2 dimensional/3 dimensional) RT for sinonasal malignancies suggest improved local control and lower incidence of severe vision impairment with IMRT in comparison to non-IMRT techniques. As observed in the non-IMRT studies, blindness due to disease progression may occur despite a lack of severe toxicity possibly due to the difficulty of controlling locally very advanced disease with a dose <= 70 Gy. Concurrent chemotherapy's influence on the the risk of severe optic toxicity after radiotherapy is unclear. A maximum dose of <= 54 Gy with conventional fractionation to the optic pathway may decrease the risk of blindness. Increased magnitude of intensity modulation through increasing the number of segments, beams, and using a combination of coplanar and non-coplanar arrangements may help increase dose conformality and optic pathway sparing when IMRT is used. Conclusion: IMRT optimized with appropriate strategies may be the treatment of choice for the most optimal local control and optic pathway sparing when treating sinonasal malignancy.

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