Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Masahiko Okumura

Publications and source records attributed to Masahiko Okumura.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Analysis of interfractional set-up errors and intrafractional organ motions during IMRT for head and neck tumors to define an appropriate planning target volume (PTV)- and planning organs at risk volume (PRV)-margins.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To analyze the interfractional set-up errors and intrafractional organ motions and to define appropriate planning target volume (PTV)- and planning organs at risk volume (PRV)-margins in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for head and neck tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients with head and neck or brain tumors who were treated with IMRT were enrolled. The set-up errors were defined as the displacements of the coordinates of bony landmarks on the beam films from those on the simulation films. The organ motions were determined as the displacements of the coordinates of the landmarks on the images recorded every 3 min for 15 min on the X-ray simulator from those on the initial image. RESULTS: The standard deviations (SDs) of the systematic set-up errors (Sigma-INTER) and organ motions (Sigma-intra) distributed with a range of 0.7-1.3 and 0.2-0.8 mm, respectively. The average of the SDs of the random set-up errors (sigma-INTER) and organ motions (sigma-intra) ranged from 0.7 to 1.6 mm and from 0.3 to 0.6 mm, respectively. Appropriate PTV-margins and PRV-margins for all the landmarks ranged from 2.0 to 3.6 mm and from 1.8 to 2.4 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We have adopted a PTV-margin of 5mm and a PRV-margin of 3mm for head and neck IMRT at our department.

Adult↗

Importance of the initial volume of parotid glands in xerostomia for patients with head and neck cancers treated with IMRT.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate predictors of xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancers treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS: Thirty-three patients with pharyngeal cancer were evaluated for xerostomia after having been treated with IMRT. All patients were treated with whole-neck irradiation of 46-50 Gy by IMRT, followed by boost IMRT to the high-risk clinical target volume to a total dose of 56-70 Gy in 28-35 fractions (median, 68 Gy). For boost IMRT, a second computed tomography (CT-2) scan was done in the third to fourth week of IMRT. Xerostomia was scored 3-4 months after the start of IMRT. RESULTS: The mean doses to the contralateral and ipsilateral parotid glands were 24.0 +/- 6.2 and 30.3 +/- 6.6 Gy, respectively. Among the 33 patients, xerostomia of grades 0, 1, 2 and 3 was noted in one, 18, 12 and two patients, respectively. Although the mean dose to the parotid glands was not correlated with the grade of xerostomia, the initial volume of the parotid glands was correlated with the grade of xerostomia (P = 0.04). Of 17 patients with small parotid glands (< or =38.8 ml) on initial CT (CT-1), 11 (65%) showed grade 2 or grade 3 xerostomia, whereas only three (19%) of 16 patients with larger parotid glands showed grade 2 xerostomia (P < 0.05). The mean volume of the parotid glands on CT-1 was 43.1 +/- 15.2 ml, but decreased significantly to 32.0 +/- 11.4 ml (74%) on CT-2 (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Initial volumes of the parotid glands are significantly correlated with the grade of xerostomia in patients treated with IMRT. The volume of the parotid glands decreased significantly during the course of IMRT.

Adult↗

Comparison of outcomes between overlapping structure-based and non-overlapping structure-based optimization for simultaneous integrated boost IMRT for malignant gliomas.

BACKGROUND: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can deliver different doses to two target volumes with high conformity. The purpose of the present study was to compare outcomes provided by two different optimization methods, overlapping structure-based and non-overlapping structure-based methods, for simultaneous integrated boost (SIB)-IMRT for malignant gliomas. METHODS: Treatment plans for three glioblastomas and one anaplastic astrocytoma were analyzed in the present study. The planning protocol was to deliver 70 Gy/28 fractions (fr) to the gross tumor volume (GTV) and 56 Gy/28 fr to the surrounding edema. Two different optimization methods were tested for optimizing dose distribution to the GTVand the surrounding edema. One method was the "including method", an overlapping structure-based (GTV and the clinical target volume [CTV]) optimization method. The other method was the "annulus method", a non-overlapping structure-based (GTV and the subtracted volume) optimization method. Dosimetric indexes derived from dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were used for the analysis. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two methods in the mean doses of the target volumes and the doses delivered to the 5% or 95% target volumes (D05 or D95). The mean dose to the brain by the including method was significantly higher than that delivered by the annulus method (P = 0.0001). The D05 of the brain showed no significant difference between the two methods. CONCLUSION: The two optimization methods provided comparable dose distributions within the target volumes and normal brain.

Brain Neoplasms↗

[Accuracy of dynamic multileaf position and influence of beam profile according to change in dose monitor unit in QA plan of intensity modulated radiotherapy].

The number of dose monitor units in IMRT QA plans differs form the actual conditions of IMRT in dosimetry for verification of dynamic multileaf-IMRT (DMLC-IMRT). We measured the accuracy of the position of the dynamic multileaf collimator and the dose profile for various numbers of dose monitor units, and verified the accuracy of dosimetry in an IMRT QA plan. The accuracy of the position of the dynamic multileaf collimator was measured by using the software of the external irradiation device, and the dose profile was measured by using the semiconductor profiler. Deviation in the position of the dynamic multileaf collimator increased as the number of dose monitor units decreased. When deviation in the position of the dynamic multileaf collimator was large and the gap width of the multileaf collimator was narrow, the change in dose profile was large. Therefore, verification of IMRT QA plans requires a phantom and measurement device close to the actual conditions of IMRT.

Phantoms, Imaging↗