Ref. | Techniques | Dose prescribed | ON/OC dose constraints | Findings |
---|---|---|---|---|
Adams [30] | IMRT vs. 2D/3D RT | 64 Gy/32 frx | Contra-lateral ON Dmax ≤ 60 Gy | On average, IMRT decreased the Dmax to the contralateral ON when compared with 2D & 3D RT(56.4 Gy vs. 65.7 Gy & 64.2 Gy), and minimized volume receiving <95% prescribed dose (8.5% vs. 15.1% & 14.7%) |
Lee [31] | Static IMRT vs. 3D CRT | 70 Gy/35 frx | Dmax ≤ 60 Gy | IMRT improved PTV coverage by the dose prescribed in general (93.0 ± 2.2% vs. 89.0 ± 4.8%, p = 0.005), no benefit in OAR sparing. |
O’Daniel [32] | Modulator IMRT vs. 3D CRT | 60-66 Gy/30–33 frx | Dmax ≤ 54 Gy | 35% minimal transmission IMRT decreased Dmax to the ON/OC (p < 0.05), and is comparable to static IMRT in ON/OC sparing |
Huang [33] | 15 beam IMRT; Sequential tomotherapy (MIMic); 5-field 3D CRT; 3-field 2D RT | Minimal dose of 60 Gy to CTV & 70 Gy to GTV | Dmax ≤ 54 Gy | IMRT achieved better GTV coverage & sparing of OC when compared to 2D & 3D RT |
Mock [34] | Passive scanning PT; IMRT; 3D CRT; 2D RT | 60-70 Gy to the PTV | ≤ 50 Gy to ON/OC | Not significantly different, 3D CRT & IMRT achieved better OAR sparing than 2D RT. PT decreased OAR mean dose by > 60% when compared to 3D CRT & IMRT. |
Pacholke [35] | 6-7 beam coplanar IMRT; 3 field; 4 field | 70.2 Gy/39 frx to PTV | Case dependent | IMRT did not demonstrate any clear advantage over conventional 4 field plans. |
Claus [36] | 4-11 beam IMRT, 5/9 beam setups were coplanar | 70 Gy/35 frx | ≤ 60 Gy | Increased beam & segment number and non-coplanar setup may lead to improved PTV dose coverage and improved OAR sparing in selected cases. |
Wang [37] | 9 beam coplanar IMRT; 5 beam non-coplanar/coplanar IMRT | 63 Gy/35 frx to PTV | Dmax < 50 Gy | Target dose better, mean dose to both ON & Dmax to the contralateral ON was significantly lower with the 5 beam approach. |
Serre [38] | 5 beam coplanar IMRT; 5 beam non-coplanar IMRT | n/a | Dmax < 55 Gy | No obvious difference in OAR sparing & target dose coverage was found |
Sheng [39] | 7 beam non-coplanar IMRT vs. HT | 50 Gy/25 frx | n/a | Comparable PTV dose coverage & OAR sparing, although better sparing of ipsilateral eye & lens |
Chen [40] | 9-11 beam coplanar IMRT vs. HT | 70 Gy/35 frx | Dmax: 54 Gy | HT reduced Dmax to OC, ipsilateral ON & retina; improved target dose homogeneity |
Tsien [41] | 9 beam coplanar IMRT vs. 3D CRT | 70 Gy/35 frx | Dmax ≤ 60 Gy | Clinical decision to spare the contralateral ON only can lead to improved PTV dose coverage and improved TCP when compared to bilateral ON sparing IMRT and 3D CRT. |