4.3 Article

Investigations on Parotid Gland Recovery after IMRT in Head and Neck Tumor Patients

期刊

STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE
卷 186, 期 12, 页码 665-671

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00066-010-2157-7

关键词

IMRT; Head and neck; Parotid gland; Xerostomia; Scintigraphy

资金

  1. Austrian National Bank (Oesterreichische Nationalbank (OeNB)) [11892]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose In recent years, the role of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for head and neck irradiation has increased The main motivation is sparing the parotid gland and reduction of xerostomia Generally, relative parotid volumes have been evaluated for treatment outcome and planning constraints, neglecting that absolute parotid volumes can vary significantly The aim of the present study was to investigate changes in parotid gland function and set this in relation to absolute volumes Material and Methods 46 head and neck patients were treated by sparing at least the contralateral parotid gland The mean dose to the contralateral gland was limited to 26 Gy Parotid function was measured with scintigraphy before and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after radiotherapy Gland recovery was correlated with absolute parotid gland volumes and mean dose Finally the dose-effect relationship was investigated Results The dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for the ipsi- and contralateral glands were significantly different A correlation between absolute volumes receiving certain doses and the function loss after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months was found The most significant correlation was found for the absolute volume that received at least 40 Gy (aV40) ED50 values of 23-38 Gy were observed for more than 50% function loss and and 52-68 Gy afor more than 75% function toss Conclusion The mean dose, aV40 or aV26, revealed similar correlations with the excretion rate and with recovery Hence, also absolute volumes can be used for treatment planning Longer recovery times show higher ED50 values indicating partial regeneration of gland functions

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据