[en] Purpose: To find parameters that predict which head and neck patients benefit from a sequentially delivered boost treatment plan compared to a simultaneously delivered plan, with the aim to spare the salivary glands. Methods and materials: We evaluated 50 recently treated head and neck cancer patients. Apart from the clinical plan with a sequentially (SEQ) given boost using an Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Technique (IMRT), a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique plan was constructed with the same beam set-up. The mean dose to the parotid glands was calculated and compared. The elective nodal areas were bilateral in all cases, with a boost on either one side or both sides of the neck. Results: When the parotid gland volume and the Planning Target Volume (PTV) for the boost overlap there is on average a lower dose to the parotid gland with a SIB technique (-1.2 Gy), which is, however, not significant (p = 0.08). For all parotid glands with no boost PTV overlap, there is a benefit from a SEQ technique compared to a SIB technique for the gland evaluated (on average a 2.5 Gy lower dose to the parotid gland, p < 0.001). When the distance between gland and PTV is 0-1 cm, this difference is on average 0.8 Gy, for 1-2 cm distance 2.9 Gy and for glands with a distance greater than 2 cm, 3.3 Gy. When the lymph nodes on the evaluated side are also included in the boost PTV, however, this relationship between the distance and the gain of a SEQ seems less clear. Conclusions: A sequentially delivered boost technique results in a better treatment plan for most cases, compared to a simultaneous integrated boost IMRT technique, if the boost PTV is more than 1 cm away from at least one parotid gland.

[en] Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to quantify the robustness of the dose distributions from three whole-breast radiotherapy (RT) techniques involving different levels of intensity modulation against whole patient setup inaccuracies and breast shape changes. Methods and Materials: For 19 patients (one computed tomography scan and five cone beam computed tomography scans each), three treatment plans were made (wedge, simple intensity-modulated RT [IMRT], and full IMRT). For each treatment plan, four dose distributions were calculated. The first dose distribution was the original plan. The other three included the effects of patient setup errors (rigid displacement of the bony anatomy) or breast errors (e.g., rotations and shape changes of the breast with respect to the bony anatomy), or both, and were obtained through deformable image registration and dose accumulation. Subsequently, the effects of the plan type and error sources on target volume coverage, mean lung dose, and excess dose were determined. Results: Systematic errors of 1-2 mm and random errors of 2-3 mm (standard deviation) were observed for both patient- and breast-related errors. Planning techniques involving glancing fields (wedge and simple IMRT) were primarily affected by patient errors (∼6% loss of coverage near the dorsal field edge and ∼2% near the skin). In contrast, plan deterioration due to breast errors was primarily observed in planning techniques without glancing fields (full IMRT, ∼2% loss of coverage near the dorsal field edge and ∼4% near the skin). Conclusion: The influences of patient and breast errors on the dose distributions are comparable in magnitude for whole breast RT plans, including glancing open fields, rendering simple IMRT the preferred technique. Dose distributions from planning techniques without glancing open fields were more seriously affected by shape changes of the breast, demanding specific attention in partial breast planning techniques.