Clinical Research Papers:

Tomotherapy as an adjuvant treatment for gastroesophageal junction and stomach cancer may reduce bowel and bone marrow toxicity compared to intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy

Xin Wang, Yuan Tian, Yuan Tang, Zhi-Hui Hu, Jia-Jia Zhang, Gui-Shan Fu, Pan Ma, Hua Ren, Tao Zhang, Ning Li, Wen-Yang Liu, Hui Fang, Ye-Xiong Li and Jing Jin _

PDF  |  HTML  |  How to cite

Oncotarget. 2017; 8:39727-39735. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.14459

Metrics: PDF 2764 views  |   HTML 2030 views  |   ?  


Xin Wang1,*, Yuan Tian1,*, Yuan Tang1, Zhi-Hui Hu1, Jia-Jia Zhang1, Gui-Shan Fu1, Pan Ma1, Hua Ren1, Tao Zhang1, Ning Li1, Wen-Yang Liu1, Hui Fang1, Ye-Xiong Li1 and Jing Jin1

1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Hospital and Institute, National Cancer Center, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Panjiayuan Nanli, Beijing, P. R. China

* These authors have contributed equally to this work

Correspondence to:

Jing Jin, email:

Keywords: gastroesophageal junction cancer, gastric cancer, helical tomotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, volumetric-modulated arc therapy

Received: January 01, 2016 Accepted: December 25, 2016 Published: January 03, 2017


Purpose: To compare dosimetric parameters of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and tomotherapy (TOMO) in the adjuvant treatment of gastroesophageal junction (GEJ)/stomach cancer. The planning goal was to maintain high target coverage while keeping the dose to the bowel and bone marrow (BM) as low as possible.

Materials and Methods:After curative surgery, 16 patients with GEJ/stomach cancer were re-planned by coplanar IMRT (five fixed beam), VMAT (double-arc), and TOMO. The dose to the planning target volume (PTV) was 45 Gy in 25 fractions. The target parameters, including the homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI), and doses to the organs at risk (OARs) were analyzed.

Results: Dosimetric parameters for PTV and OARs were comparable among the three techniques. However, TOMO provided improved conformity (CI = 0.92±0.03) and homogeneity (HI = 1.07±0.02) than IMRT (CI = 0.87±0.03; HI = 1.09±0.02; p < 0.05) and VMAT (CI = 0.86±0.03; HI = 1.09±0.02; p < 0.01). TOMO also improved dose sparing of the bowel (percentage of the volume receiving a dose of ≥ 30 Gy [V30] = 23.24±9.85) and BM (V30 = 71.66±6.15) compared with IMRT (bowel V30 = 30.02±11.74; BM V30 = 83.74±8.42; p < 0.01) and VMAT (bowel V30 = 31.88±11.59; BM V30 = 79.51±9.07; p < 0.01).

Conclusions: TOMO is a good option for adjuvant treatment of GEJ/stomach cancer in patients undergoing radical surgery due to its superior bowel and BM dose sparing, dose conformity and dose homogeneity; however, future studies are required to validate its clinical efficacy.

Creative Commons License All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
PII: 14459