Aims and background: Radiotherapy is the standard treatment of glioblastoma. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy is the standard technique to treat glioblastoma. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy and helical intensity-modulated radiotherapy (tomotherapy) are becoming widely used. The present study compared three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and tomotherapy in terms of target coverage and preservation of organs at risk.
Methods: Ten patients treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, with a target volume close to or superimposed to the organs at risk, were retrospectively selected. The plans were re-planned with step-and-shoot 3/5 fields intensity-modulated radiotherapy and tomotherapy. Target coverage and sparing of organs at risk were statistically compared.
Results: Mean planning target volume V95% improved with sophisticated techniques (87.2%, 93.2%, 97.6% with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and tomotherapy, respectively). The comparison of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy did not show significant differences, whereas differences were significant when three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and tomotherapy as well as intensity-modulated radiotherapy and tomotherapy were compared. Mean planning target volume/clinical target volume D99-D98-D95 were not different between three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy, but they were different between tomotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy, with better clinical target volume/and planning target volume coverage with the tomotherapy plans. Brain D33/66 were 31.1/11.8 Gy, 37.5/18.3 Gy and 28.5/14.7 Gy with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and tomotherapy, respectively. Mean brainstem, optic nerves and chiasma Dmax were always within the defined constraints. The homogeneity index improved with intensity-modulated radiotherapy/tomotherapy compared to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Tomotherapy was better than intensity-modulated radiotherapy in all patients.
Conclusions: In this selected group of patients, a significant dosimetric advantage was evident for tomotherapy compared with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Significant advantages were evident in terms of panning target volume coverage (V95), D99, D98 and D95. The clinical significance of the results should be defined.