Feasibility study of conformal forward planned simultaneous integrated boost technique comparable to IMRT and VMAT in pelvic irradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer

Sam Deva Kumar Johnjothi 1 , Arulpandiyan Ranganathan 1 , Vasanth Christopher Jayapaul 2 , Rithesh Santosham 2 , Dhanabalan Rajasekaran 1 , Vivekanandan Nagarajan 1 , and Selvaluxmy Ganesharaja 2
  • 1 Department of Medical Physics, Cancer Institute (WIA), , Chennai, India
  • 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Institute (WIA), , Chennai, India


Aim: To check the feasibility of simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) using a forward planned field in field (FIF) conformal technique for the treatment of carcinoma of the cervix IIIB and compare it dosimetrically with other advanced inverse planning techniques.

Methods: In our study 33 patients of carcinoma of the cervix IIIB were planned for SIB using conformal FIF technique and they were compared with retrospectively planned IMRT and VMAT techniques. SIB using conformal FIF was planned by two different methods.

Results: The results of our study indicate that forward planned Conformal SIB techniques are comparable with inverse planned techniques dosimetrically, in terms of conformity Index, Homogeneity Index, Maximum dose, etc. The ability of FIF SIB plans to produce dose contrast in differential dose accumulation was compared and analyzed and the results were encouraging. To treat an advanced/bulky disease like Carcinoma of the Cervix IIIB in centers with large patient load, utilizing advanced techniques such as IMRT and VMAT is both technically and practically difficult. Despite VMAT’s shorter delivery time, the procedures involved are time-consuming.

Conclusion: Hence forward planned SIB techniques may be used to achieve similar dosimetric effects of IMRT and VMAT techniques without much compromise in plan quality and patient throughput for treating bulky carcinoma of the cervix IIIB cases. However, the clinical results need to be carefully compared and evaluated and reported.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Choy D, Wong LC, Sham J, et al. Dose-tumor response of carcinoma of cervix: an analysis of 594 patients treated by radiotherapy. Gynecol Oncol. 1993;49(3):311-17.

  • [2] Lanciano RM, Martz K, Coia LR, et al. Tumor and treatment factors improving outcome in stage III-B cervix cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;20(1):95-100.

  • [3] Niibe Y, Hayakawa K, Kanai T, et al. Optimal dose for stage IIIB adeno-carcinoma of the uterine cervix on the basis of biological effective dose. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2006;27(1):47-9

  • [4] Lanciano RM, Won M, Coia LR, et al. Pretreatment and treatment factors associated with improved outcome in squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a final report of the 1973 and 1978 patterns of care studies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;20(4):667-676.

  • [5] Cihoric N, Tsikkinis A, Tapia C, et al. Dose escalated intensity modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of cervical cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2015;10:240

  • [6] Beadle BM, Jhingran A, Salehpour M, et al. Cervix regression and motion during the course of external beam chemoradiation for cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;73(1):235-241.

  • [7] Vandecasteele K, De Neve W, De Gersem W, et al. Intensity-modulated arc therapy with simultaneous integrated boost in the treatment of primary irresectable cervical cancer. Strahlenther Onkol. 2009;185(12):799-807.

  • [8] Kathirvel M, Subramanian S, Clivio A, et al. Critical appraisal of the accuracy of Acuros-XB and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm compared to measurement and calculations with the compass system in the delivery of RapidArc clinical plans. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8:140.

  • [9] Fogliata A, Nicoloni G, Clivio A, et al. Dosimetric evaluation of Acuros XB Advanced Dose Calculation algorithm in heterogeneous media. Radiat Oncol. 2011;6:82

  • [10] Bush K, Gagne IM, Zavgorodni S, et al. Dosimetric validation of Acuros® XB with Monte Carlo methods for photon dose calculations. Med Phys. 2011;38(4):2208-2221.

  • [11] Han T, Mikell JK, Salehpour M, et al. Dosimetric comparison of Acuros XB deterministic radiation transport method with Monte Carlo and model-based convolution methods in heterogeneous media. Med Phys. 2011;38(5):2651-2664.

  • [12] Han T, Mourtada F, Kisling K, et al. Experimental validation of deterministic Acuros XB algorithm for IMRT and VMAT dose calculations with the Radiological Physics Centre’s head and neck phantom. Med Phys. 2012;39(4):2193-2202.

  • [13] Shaw E, Kline R, Gillin M, et al. Radiation therapy oncology group: Radiosurgery quality assurance guidelines. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;27(5):1231-1239.

  • [14] Aly MOMA, Glatting G, Jahnke L, et al. Comparison of breast simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) radiotherapy techniques. Radiat Oncol. 2015;10:139.

  • [15] Cilla S, Deodato F, Digesù C, et al. Assessing the feasibility of volumetric modulated arc therapy using simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-VMAT): An analysis for complex head-neck, high risk prostate and rectal cancer cases. Med Dosim. 2014;39(1):108-116.

  • [16] Yang W, Jones R, Read P, et al. Standardized evaluation of simultaneous integrated boost plans on volumetric modulated arc therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56(2):327-339.

  • [17] van’t Riet A, Mak AC, Moerland MA, et al. A conformation number to quantify the degree of Conformality in brachytherapy and external beam Irradiation: application to the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;37(3):731-736.

  • [18] Gay HA, Niemierko A. A free program for calculating EUD based NTCP and TCP in external beam radiotherapy. Phys Med. 2007;23(3-4):115-125.

  • [19] Okunieff P, Morgan D, Niemierko A, et al. Radiation dose-response of human tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;32(4):1227-1237.

  • [20] Suit H, Skates S, Taghian A, et al. Clinical implications of heterogeneity of tumor response to radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol. 1992;25(4):251-260.

  • [21] Girinsky T, Rey A, Roche B, et al. Overall treatment time in advanced cervical carcinomas: a critical parameter in treatment outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;27(5):1051-1056.

  • [22] Lanciano RM, Pajak TF, Martz K, et al. The influence of treatment time on outcome for squamous cell cancer of the uterine cervix treated with radiation: a patterns-of-care study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;25(3):391-397.

  • [23] Sugawara T, Mizutani Y, Nakazawa M, et al. The effect of treatment time on pelvic recurrence in patients with stage III-IV uterine cervix cancer. J Jpn Soc Ther Radiol Oncol. 1993;5:117-123.

  • [24] Perez CA, Grigsby PW, Castro-Vita H, et al. Carcinoma of the uterine cervix. I. Impact of prolongation of overall treatment time and timing of brachytherapy on outcome of radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;32(5):1275-1288.

  • [25] Nishimura Y, Okajima K, Hiraoka M. Optimal overall treatment time in fractionated radiotherapy for head and neck cancers, esophageal cancer, and uterine cervical cancer. Nippon Hoshasen Shuyo Gakkai-Shi. 1996;8(4):303-315.

  • [26] Withers HR, Taylor JM, Maciejewski B. The hazard of accelerated tumor clonogen repopulation during radiotherapy. Acta Oncol. 1988;27(2):131-146.

  • [27] Petereit DG, Sarkaria JN, Chappell R, et al. The adverse effect of treatment prolongation in cervical carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;32(5):1301-1307.

  • [28] Fyles AW, Pintilie M, Kirkbride P, et al. Prognostic factors in patients treated cervix cancer treated by radiation therapy: results of multiple regression analysis. Radiotherapy Oncol.1995;35(2):107-117.

  • [29] Wu Q, Manning M, Schmidt-Ullrich R, et al. The potential for sparing of parotids and escalation of biologically effective dose with intensity-modulated radiation treatments of head and neck cancers: a treatment design study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;46(1):195-205.

  • [30] Bos LJ, Damen EM, de Boer RW, et al. Reduction of rectal dose by integration of the boost in the large-field treatment plan for prostate irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;52(1):254-265.

  • [31] Vandecasteele K, De Neve W, De Gersem W, et al. Intensity modulated arc therapy with simultaneous integrated boost in the treatment of primary irresectable cervical cancer. Treatment planning, quality control, and clinical implementation. Strahlenther Onkol. 2009;185(12):799-807.

  • [32] Dogan N, King S, Emami B, et al. Assessment of different IMRT boost delivery methods on target coverage and normal tissue sparing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57(5):1480-1491.

  • [33] Fogliata A, Bolsi A, Cozzi L, et al. Comparative dosimetric evaluation of the simultaneous integrated boost with photon intensity modulation in head and neck cancer patients. Radiother Oncol. 2003;69(3):267-275.

  • [34] Mohan R, Wu Q, Manning M, et al. Radiobiological considerations in the design of fractionation strategies for intensity-modulated radiation therapy of head and neck cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;46(3):619-630.

  • [35] Haque WM, Endres EC, Szeja S, et al. Simultaneous Integrated Boost using Conformal Radiation Therapy for Treatment of Cervical Cancer. Intl J Cancer Oncol. 2016;3(1):1-7.


Journal + Issues