A forward-planned treatment technique using multisegments in the treatment of head-and-neck cancer.

Purpose: To describe in detail a forward-planned multisegment technique (FPMS) as an alternative treatment method for patients who are not suitable for inverse-planned intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IP-IMRT), or for situations where IP-IMRT is not available in a medical clinic.

Methods And Materials: Between April 1995 and February 2002, 38 primary head-and-neck patients were treated using the FPMS technique, which has evolved over the past 7 years at our medical center. In the most recent version of the FPMS technique, which includes 5 patients examined in this analysis, the primary tumor and the upper neck nodes were treated with 7 gantry angles, including an anterior, 2 lateral, 2 anterior oblique, and 2 posterior oblique beams with a total of 13 beam shapes formed by multileaf collimators (MLC), called MLC segments. The shape of each MLC segment was carefully designed, and the associated weights were optimized through manual iterations. The lower neck nodes and the supraclavicular nodes were treated with a split-beam anterior field, matched to the inferior border of the FPMS plan at the isocenter. With an autosequencing delivery system, all fields, including dynamic wedges, can be automatically treated. The dosimetric accuracy of this technique was verified with a phantom plan and measured with an ionization chamber, as well as film dosimetry. A sample FPMS plan is described in detail, and the average results for the 5 patients treated with FPMS are retrospectively compared to results for similar patients treated with IP-IMRT.

Results: The gross tumor volume was prescribed to 70 Gy (2.12 Gy/fraction) at the 88% isodose line, whereas the clinical target volume received a dose of 59.4 Gy (1.8 Gy/fraction) at the 75% isodose line. The maximum dose to the brainstem and spinal cord was below 54 and 45 Gy, respectively, comparable to IP-IMRT. The mean dose to the parotid glands was 32 Gy with FPMS vs. 26 Gy with IP-IMRT. Average delivery time was shorter for FPMS (15 min) than IP-IMRT (30 min), whereas the planning time depended on the expertise of the planner. Dosimetric accuracy for FPMS and IP-IMRT plans using phantom measurements was similar, within 1% of the phantom plan. With a median follow-up of 31 months, there was no local-regional recurrence, and the incidence of xerostomia is reduced compared to conventional techniques.

Conclusion: FPMS achieved plans comparable to those for IP-IMRT and is an ideal alternative treatment technique for a center without the capabilities of IP-IMRT or for a patient who is not a suitable candidate, because of prolonged treatment time. The treatment outcomes from our clinical experience indicate that FPMS can achieve excellent local freedom from progression rates without causing excessive toxicity. Lastly, IP-IMRT plans should be comparable to, if not better than, FPMS plans in the treatment of head-and-neck cancer.