[en] Background and purpose: Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) at Royal Marsden Hospital London was introduced in July 2001. Treatment delivery was dynamic using a single-phase technique. Concerns were raised regarding increased clinical workload due to introduction of new technology. The potential increased use of resources was assessed. Patients and methods: IMRT patient selection was within guidelines of clinical trials and included patients undergoing prostate plus pelvic lymph node (PPN) irradiation and head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment. Patient planning, quality assurance and treatment times were collected for an initial IMRT patient group. A comparative group of patients with advanced HNC undergoing two- or three-phase conventional radiotherapy, requiring matched photon and electron fields, were also timed. Results: The median overall total planning time for IMRT was greater for HNC patients compared to the PPN cohort. For HNC the overall IMRT planning time was significantly longer than for conventional. The median treatment time for conventional two- or three-phase HNC treatments, encompassing similar volumes to those treated with IMRT, was greater than that for the IMRT HNC patient cohort. A reduction in radiographer man hours per patient of 4.8 h was recorded whereas physics time was increased by 4.9 h per patient. Conclusions: IMRT currently increases overall planning time. Additional clinician input is required for target volume localisation. Physics time is increased, a significant component of this being patient specific QA. Radiographer time is decreased. For HNC a single phase IMRT treatment has proven to be more efficient than a multiple phase conventional treatment. IMRT has been integrated smoothly and efficiently into the existing treatment working day. This preliminary study suggests that IMRT could be a routine treatment with efficient use of current radiotherapy resources

[en] Purpose: To investigate the potential for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) to spare the bowel in rectal tumors. Methods and Materials: The targets (pelvic nodal and rectal volumes), bowel, and bladder were outlined in 5 patients. All had conventional, three-dimensional conformal RT and forward-planned multisegment three-field IMRT plans compared with inverse-planned simultaneous integrated boost nine-field equally spaced IMRT plans. Equally spaced seven-field and five-field and five-field, customized, segmented IMRT plans were also evaluated. Results: Ninety-five percent of the prescribed dose covered at least 95% of both planning target volumes using all but the conventional plan (mean primary and pelvic planning target volume receiving 95% of the prescribed dose was 32.8 ± 13.7 Gy and 23.7 ± 4.87 Gy, respectively), reflecting a significant lack of coverage. The three-field forward planned IMRT plans reduced the volume of bowel irradiated to 45 Gy and 50 Gy by 26% ± 16% and 42% ± 27% compared with three-dimensional conformal RT. Additional reductions to 69 ± 51 cm³ to 45 Gy and 20 ± 21 cm³ to 50 Gy were obtained with the nine-field equally spaced IMRT plans-64% ± 11% and 64% ± 20% reductions compared with three-dimensional conformal RT. Reducing the number of beams and customizing the angles for the five-field equally spaced IMRT plan did not significantly reduce bowel sparing. Conclusion: The bowel volume irradiated to 45 Gy and 50 Gy was significantly reduced with IMRT, which could potentially lead to less bowel toxicity. Reducing the number of beams did not reduce bowel sparing and the five-field customized segmented IMRT plan is a reasonable technique to be tested in clinical trials