The British Journal of Radiology, 77 (2004), 177182 E 2004 The British Institute of Radiology

DOI: 10.1259/bjr/54028034

Review article
Clinical use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy: part II
M T GUERRERO URBANO, MRCPI, FRCR and C M NUTTING, MRCP, FRCR, MD
Radiotherapy Department and Head and Neck Unit, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Trust,
London and Surrey, UK

Abstract. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is a novel conformal radiotherapy technique which

is gaining increasingly widespread use. This second clinical article aims to summarize the published data
pertaining to prostate cancer, pelvic irradiation, gynaecological and breast cancer. Prostate cancer patients
represent the largest group treated to date. The main indication has been radiation dose escalation within
acceptable normal tissue late toxicity. Phase II data are promising, but no randomized clinical trial data are
available to support its use. Pelvic IMRT aims to deliver radical radiation doses to pelvic lymph nodes while
sparing the bowel and bladder. Indications for breast IMRT data are reviewed, and current data presented.
Further data from randomized trials are required to confirm the anticipated benefits of IMRT in patients.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is a novel

conformal radiotherapy (CRT) technique that produces
highly conformal dose distributions. The clinical applica-
tions include conformal avoidance strategies aimed at
reducing the radiation dose to organs at risk (OR) and
hence normal tissue radiation toxicity, or radiation dose
escalation to tumours with the goal of increased tumour
control. This second of two articles [1] presents the
published clinical data on the treatment of prostate cancer,
pelvic lymph node irradiation including gynaecological
tumours and breast cancer.

Urological malignancies
Prostate cancer
Prostate cancer is currently the single most common
Figure 1. A dose distribution for the treatment of prostate
tumour site treated with IMRT Worldwide. The treatment cancer using a five-field technique. Colourwash: 95% green,
goals are increased tumour control through dose escala- 70% yellow, 50% orange, 20% dark blue.
tion, and reduced late radiation toxicity.
At Memorial Sloane Kettering Cancer Center, a Phase
comparing 61 patients with clinical stage T1cT3 N0 M0
II dose escalation study has been underway. IMRT was
prostate cancer treated with 3DCRT and 171 with IMRT
initially used at this institution to boost prostate cancer
to a prescribed dose of 81 Gy, between 1992 and 1998.
treated with 3DCRT to 72 Gy in 40 fractions. An addi-
Acute and late radiation-induced morbidity was evaluated
tional 9 Gy in 5 fractions were given with 6 inverse-planned
intensity modulated beams using dynamic multileaf colli- in all patients and graded according to the Radiation
mation (DMLC) [2]. Stein et al [3] evaluated the number Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity scale. They
of equispaced co-planar IMRT fields required to obtain an reported a 2 year actuarial risk of grade 2 bleeding of 2%
optimum treatment plan for prostate cancer and showed for IMRT and 10% for conventional 3DCRT (p,0.001).
an increase in the number of fields with increased pres- A further report showed a significant reduction in the
cription dose, ranging from 3 fields for 70 Gy plans to 7 to incidence of late grade 2 rectal toxicity in the patients
9 beams for 81 Gy plans. Burman [4] showed that using a treated to 81 Gy with IMRT compared with 3DCRT (2%
five-field IMRT plan, good conformal dose distributions versus 14%) and suggested an improvement in 5 year
were obtained to deliver 81 Gy to the planning target actuarial prostate specific antigen (PSA) failure and
volume (PTV), and that the dose to the bladder and positive biopsy rates with increasing dose [6]. The largest
rectum were kept within tolerance (Figure 1). This group report of IMRT for prostate cancer was published from
first reported the acute toxicity observed using IMRT [5] the same group in 2002 [7]. A total of 772 patients were
reported (698 treated to 81 Gy and 74 treated to 86 Gy).
Received 2 October 2003 and accepted 1 December 2003. The maximum RTOG acute rectal toxicity was grade 2 in
Address correspondence to Dr C Nutting, Head and Neck Unit, 4.5%. Only one patient reported acute bladder toxicity
Royal Marsden NHS Trust, Fulham Road, London SW3 6JJ, UK. grade 3 and 28% had grade 2. Late rectal toxicity was

The British Journal of Radiology, March 2004 177

M T Guerrero Urbano and C M Nutting

grade 2 in 1.5% patients and grade 3 in 0.1%. Late bladder

toxicity was grade 2 in 9% and grade 3 in 0.5% patients.
The 3 year actuarial PSA relapse-free survival rates for
favourable, intermediate and unfavourable risk group
patients were 92%, 86%, and 81%, respectively. This phase
II data appears to show increased PSA control with
increasing radiation dose compared with historical con-
trols. However, during the time period of this study, there
has been an improvement in the prognosis of prostate
cancer patients in the USA [8], and this represents a
potential bias in the interpretation of data based on
historical controls without randomized controlled data.
De Meerler et al [9] used segmented static beams to
escalate the dose to the prostate while keeping the anterior
rectal wall maximum dose at 72 Gy. They showed that a
three-field solution (0, 116 and 244 ) using a biological
objective function based computer optimization provided a
significant increase the ratio of predicted tumour control
probability (TCP) over rectal normal tissue control pro-
bability (NTCP).
The Cleveland Clinic Foundation used the increased
rectal sparing observed with IMRT to deliver a hypo-
fractionated schedule (70 Gy in 28 daily fractions) pre- Figure 2. A dose distribution for the irradiation of pelvic
scribed to an isodose line ranging from 83% to 90%. Tight lymph nodes (pink outline) and bowel (blue outline). 60 Gy
(4 mm posteriorly, 8 mm laterally and 5 mm in all other (yellow colourwash) is delivered as a boost to an enlarged
node thought to be a metastasis, the remainder of the nodes
directions) clinical target volume (CTV) to PTV margins
receive 55 Gy (orange colourwash).
were used and a 7% actuarial rate of rectal bleeding at 18
months was reported [10]. This group reported a stati- boost is now used clinically at the University of California
stically significant improvement in biochemical relapse-free [15]. In a modelling study, a simultaneous integrated boost
survival in 166 patients treated with IMRT (70 Gy in 28 technique was used to dose escalate intraprostatic tumour
fractions) versus 116 patients treated with 3DCRT (78 Gy nodules to 90 Gy by Nutting et al [16]. Improvements in
in 39 fractions) (94% vs 88%, p50.084, non-randomized TCP to NTCP ratio were suggested, although it was noted
comparison). Actuarial late rectal toxicity for the hypo- that this was dependent on the position of the intrapro-
fractionated IMRT group was 5%. static node in relation to the anterior rectal wall. This
Bastash et al [11] reported no increase in erectile technique is now used at this institution to boost positive
dysfunction following post-operative IMRT in 18 patients pelvic nodes in patients with prostate cancer who are at
who remained potent after nerve-sparing prostatectomy, high risk of pelvic node involvement (.30% risk), or
having received a mean dose of 69.6 Gy to the prostate bed. patients with small volume pelvic lymphadenopathy in the
absence of distant metastases utilizes the abovementioned
phase I study.
Pelvic lymph node irradiation for prostate cancer
IMRT was shown in planning studies to reduce the dose
Bladder
to the small bowel during pelvic irradiation. Nutting et al
[12] showed a significant 5075% reduction in the volume Improved PTV dose homogeneity with a reduction in
of bowel irradiated to more than 45 Gy with inverse both the high and low dose areas and reduction in normal
planned 3 to 9 field IMRT. A 57 beam DMLC technique tissue Dmax and rectal dose has been shown, both with
to treat pelvic nodes and prostate has been implemented at DMLC [17] and forward planned partially wedged lateral
the Royal Marsden Hospital to treat patients within a beams [18].
Phase I dose escalation study (Figure 2) [13]. The first
phase of the study involved delivery of 70 Gy to the
Gynaecological malignancies
prostate gland, 64 Gy to the seminal vesicles and 50 Gy to
the pelvic nodes to 20 patients. To date 53 patients have Primary radiotherapy for gynaecological malignancies
been treated and the current dose level is to 60 Gy. No usually requires whole pelvis radiotherapy followed by
Grade 3 late gastrointestinal complications have been brachytherapy, with small bowel, rectum and bladder
recorded so far (Dr DP Dearnaley, personal communication). being the main dose limiting structures. The use of con-
Advances in imaging modalities such as endorectal MRI comitant chemotherapy in locally advanced cancer of the
and MR spectroscopy (MRS) have made it possible to cervix, while improving survival, is also associated with
identify foci of carcinoma within the prostate. Pickett et al increased morbidity. Radiotherapy to the whole pelvis is
[14] used IMRT to boost an intraprostatic lesion, defined also required following surgery if there is a high risk of
by MRI+MRS, to 90 Gy using 2.25 Gy per fraction while lymph node involvement, especially in uterine carcinoma.
the entire prostate was treated to 70 Gy at 1.8 Gy per frac- Low et al [19] postulated that IMRT may replace high
tion and not exceeding normal tissue tolerances. Because dose-rate brachytherapy using an immobilization device
of differences in the dose per fraction the biologic advantages within the vagina. Portelance et al and Roeske et al [20,
of this technique are likely to be even greater. Intraprostatic 21] have shown in planning studies that IMRT reduces the

178 The British Journal of Radiology, March 2004

Review article: Clinical use of IMRT: part II

volume of small bowel irradiated to 45 Gy during whole

pelvis radiotherapy (WPRT) both for cervical and uterine
cancer. Portelance et al [20] studied 10 patients with
cervical cancer, treating the uterus, cervix and pelvic and
para-aortic nodes to 45 Gy in 25 fractions. They compared
4-, 7- and 9-field Corvus plans delivered by DMLC with a
4-field box technique and showed a 5867% reduction in
the volume of small bowel irradiated to more than 45 Gy
with IMRT that increased with the number of fields, but
not beyond 7 fields.
Roeske et al [21] reported similar results in 10 patients
with cervical or uterine carcinoma, treating the proximal
vagina, parametrial tissues, uterus and pelvic nodes to 45 Gy
in 25 fractions. A 50% reduction in the volume of small bowel
irradiated to more than 45 Gy was observed with a 9-field
Corvus plan when compared with 4 field 3DCRT. Figure 3. A dose distribution for adjuvant pelvic node irradia-
Mutic et al [22] used IMRT to escalate the dose to tion for endometrial cancer.
positive para-aortic lymph nodes identified by PET to
59.4 Gy, and to 50.4 Gy to the para-aortic area while Grade 3/4 bowel toxicity following conventional radio-
treating the pelvis with conventional methods. Similar therapy is reportedly low, but Grade 1 and 2, with their
results were achieved with arc IMRT in Japan [23]. potential impact in the patients quality of life is most
Hong et al [24] developed a technique to treat the likely under-reported. IMRT has an important role to play
whole abdomen with DMLC IMRT. Five 15 MV intensity in future clinical studies evaluating possible reductions in
modulated beams were designed to spare the kidneys and bowel toxicity and their impact on quality of life following
bone marrow resulting in a 60% reduction in the volume whole pelvis radiotherapy.
of pelvic bones receiving more than 21 Gy and the same
level of kidney sparing when compared with a conven-
tional anteroposterior (AP)/posteroanterior (PA) 6 MV Upper gastrointestinal tumours
treatment.
Early clinical experience in 40 patients with gynaecologi- Oesophagus
cal malignancies who received whole pelvis irradiation Nutting at al [29] found that a 9-field Corvus plan had
with IMRT, and brachytherapy to the cervix, uterus or no advantages over 3DCRT but that a 4-field plan reduced
vaginal vault if necessary, showed excellent PTV coverage the mean lung dose from 11 Gy to 9.5 Gy (p50.001).
(98.1% of the PTV receiving the target dose, with a median
of 9.8% and 0.2% receiving 110% and 115% of the pre-
scription dose, respectively) and reduced acute Grade 2 Pancreas
RTOG gastrointestinal toxicity (60% vs 91%) (p50.002)
and similar acute genitourinary toxicity (p50.22) when Forward-planned and inverse-planned IMRT and pro-
compared with a contemporary cohort of patients receiving ton therapy were evaluated in the treatment of pancreatic
whole pelvis radiotherapy within chemoradiation proto- and biliary duct tumours by Zurlo et al [30]. Proton
cols [25, 26]. A reduction in haematological toxicity was therapy was superior to both IMRT techniques in both
also observed by this group, in the chemo-IMRT treated PTV coverage and normal tissue sparing.
patients, when compared with standard treatment (31% vs Landry et al [31] predicted a reduction in bowel com-
60% grade 2 or greater white blood cell toxicity). This was plication probability for pancreatic tumours using inverse-
attributed to a significant reduction of bone marrow planned IMRT designed to deliver 61.2 Gy to the gross
irradiated, particularly within the iliac crests [27]. tumour volume (GTV) and 45 Gy to the CTV. An attempt
Accurate delineation of the pelvic nodes is required for by Crane et al [32] to escalate both the radiation dose and
pelvic radiotherapy in these patients and guidelines for the gemcitabine dose using IMRT resulted in dose limiting
target volume definition have been proposed by Chao et al toxicity in all 5 evaluated patients.
[28] using lymphangiography to determine the greatest
distance from lymph node to vessel and pelvic side wall as
a guide to CTV definitions on CT.
Second malignancy with IMRT
IMRT has been shown to provide improved dose dis- An important issue with IMRT treatment delivery is
tributions (Figure 3) when treating the pelvic nodes in the that it requires a substantial increase in monitor units
setting of both uterine and cervical carcinoma, with a per target dose, therefore possibly increasing the risk of
reduction in the volume of small bowel irradiated beyond secondary malignancies outside the treatment area. In
45 Gy. The data currently available does not allow addition, the use of multiple fields in IMRT increases the
separate conclusions with regards to uterine and cervical volume of tissue receiving a low dose of radiation. Dorr
cancer and primary and post-operative treatments. Another et al [33] suggested that the majority of secondary
issue is whether IMRT could be a substitute for brachy- malignancies are seen within 2.5 cm inside to 5 cm outside
therapy. In our opinion this is unlikely as brachytherapy the margin of the PTV. Verellen et al [34] calculated the
offers the advantage of organ immobilization and very estimated whole-body equivalent dose for IMRT (1969 mSv)
conformal dose distributions with steep dose gradients, and conventional (242 mSv) delivery of 70 Gy with 6 MV
which, so far, have not been achieved with IMRT. photons. Using the nominal probability coefficient for a

The British Journal of Radiology, March 2004 179

M T Guerrero Urbano and C M Nutting

lifetime risk of excess fatal cancer (recommended by the

ICRP 60) they suggested an increase in the risk of
secondary malignancies by a factor of 8. Hall [35] has
suggested that IMRT will almost double the incidence of
second malignancies, from about 1% with conventional
radiotherapy to 1.75% for patients surviving 10 years.
Long-term follow up of patients currently treated with
IMRT is essential to evaluate accurately the risk of second
malignancies in this group.

Breast cancer
Post-operative radiotherapy in women with breast
cancer has been shown to improve locoregional disease-
free survival [36] and overall survival [3739] in several
series. The Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative
Group (EBCTCG) meta-analysis [36] suggested that
radiation improved breast cancer-specific mortality but Figure 4. Isodose comparisons between standard conventional
this was offset by an increase in deaths from cardiovas- radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for
cular disease. This was not apparent in the first 9 years breast cancer. Image provided by the Breast Technology
after treatment and this study included trials that used Group, Royal Marsden Hospital/ Institute of Cancer Research,
radiotherapy techniques and equipment considered sub- Sutton, Surrey, UK.
optimal by todays standards. Further studies have failed
to show conclusively a difference in cardiac-related mor-
tality [40, 41], and no differences in cardiac mortality IMRT. This is of importance when considering treatment
between right and left sided breast irradiation have, so far, of the internal mammary nodes, which has been shown to
been identified. However long term follow up is necessary improve disease free survival in high risk patients [53].
to evaluate fully the risk of cardiac toxicity, as this risk Remouchamps et al [54] showed that a significant reduc-
increases with time, and new radiation techniques such as tion in the V30 heart volume to 3.1% is possible, with 2
IMRT offer the potential to reduce dose delivered not only direct tangential IMRT fields, as well as a mean lung V20
to the left ventricle, but also the lung. to 15.2% using moderate deep inspiration breath hold
Treatment to the whole breast with standard tangential using an active breathing control system when compared
fields produces rather inhomogeneous dose distributions with free breathing. In post-mastectomy patients, Krueger
due to the variations in thickness across the target volume, [55] showed an increased volume of contralateral breast
in particular in large breasted patients [42]. The underlying was treated and increased contralateral lung dose with
ribs, lung and apex of the left ventricle are in part included IMRT. Hurkmans et al [56] showed a 50% reduction in the
within the same isodose as the target volume and hot spots NTCP for late cardiac toxicity.
are often found in areas of reduced tissue thickness, such Vicini et al [57] reported 281 patients with early stage
as the superior and inferior aspects of the chest wall breast cancer treated with breast conserving surgery,
included in the radiotherapy field. These dose inhomo- followed by whole breast radiotherapy using SMLC
geneities may lead to increased late skin toxicity (poor IMRT with a median number of 6 SMLC segments required
cosmesis, fibrosis, pain) and increased cardiac and lung per patient. Good dose homogeneity was reported with a
morbidity.
median volume of breast receiving .105% of the pre-
The dosimetric advantages of IMRT have been eva-
scribed dose of 11%. 97% of patients experienced acute
luated in several planning studies. Evans et al [43, 44]
skin toxicity grades 12.
described the use of portal imaging in determining the
A randomized controlled trial of 300 patients comparing
relative thickness of breast and lung followed by the design
IMRT with standard wedged tangential fields finished
of an automatic dose calculation algorithm to determine the
recruitment in 2000 at The Institute of Cancer Research
optimum beam profile that allowed delivery of intensity
modulated beams, first with custom-made compensators, and Royal Marsden Hospital [58]. The primary endpoint is
and then with static multileaf collimation (SMLC) [45, 46] late toxicity, measured with external photographic review
(Figure 4). A 25% reduction in the dose encompassing and clinical and patient assessment. An analysis of the
20% of the coronary artery region in left breast treatments, positional distribution of dose showed doses above 105%
and a 42% reduction in the mean dose to the contralateral of that prescribed in the upper or lower breast regions in
breast using DMLC was shown by Hong et al [47]. There only 4% of patients treated with IMRT versus over 70% of
was also a 30% reduction in the ipsilateral lung volume patients treated with standard techniques [59] (Figure 4).
receiving more than the 46 Gy prescribed dose and This analysis will allow effective correlation of dosimetry
improved homogeneity across the target volume, particu- and clinical effects.
larly in the superior and inferior regions of the breast. Li IMRT has also been shown to reduce the volume of
et al [48] used four intensity modulated photon beams ipsilateral lung treated beyond 15 Gy in a patient with
combined with an electron field to show a reduction in the pectum excavatum, although this was associated with an
dose to the ipsilateral lung and heart. Several planning increase in the volume of heart, spinal cord and con-
studies [4951] have also shown these dosimetric advantages tralateral breast and lung receiving low-dose irradiation
and Landau et al [52] showed improved cardiac sparing with [60].

180 The British Journal of Radiology, March 2004

Review article: Clinical use of IMRT: part II

Conclusions 12. Nutting CM, Convery DJ, Cosgrove VP, Rowbottom C,

Padhani AR, Webb S, et al. Reduction of small and large
IMRT dose distributions have been shown, for a num- bowel irradiation using an optimized intensity-modulated
ber of tumour types, to offer potential improvements in pelvic radiotherapy technique in patients with prostate cancer.
clinical outcomes. Planning studies have demonstrated Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;48:64956.
which tumour types have the largest potential gains and 13. Clark CH, Mubata CD, Meehan CA, Bidmead AM,
small clinical studies are beginning to report short-term Staffurth J, Humphreys ME, et al. IMRT clinical implemen-
tation: prostate and pelvic node irradiation using Helios and a
outcome data from patients. Most of these reports are
120-leaf multileaf collimator. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2002;3:
small Phase I or II trials where there has been no true 27384.
comparison of IMRT with the conventional radiotherapy 14. Pickett B, Vigneault E, Kurhanewicz J, Verhey L, Roach M.
technique. There is a tendency in some health care systems Static field intensity modulation to treat a dominant intra-
to adopt IMRT as standard of care for some tumour types prostatic lesion to 90 Gy compared to seven field
without full testing in controlled trials. It is the authors 3-dimensional radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
views that IMRT delivery should remain in the context of 1999;44:9219.
15. Shu HK, Lee TT, Vigneauly E, Xia P, Pickett B, Phillips TL,
clinical trials until such time as these improved dose
et al. Toxicity following high-dose three-dimensional con-
distributions have proven clinical benefits for patients. formal and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for clini-
cally localized prostate cancer. Urology 2001;57:1027.
16. Nutting CM, Corbishley CM, Sanchez-Nieto B, Cosgrove VP,
Webb S, Dearnaley DP. Potential improvements in the
References therapeutic ratio of prostate cancer irradiation: dose escala-
tion of pathologically identified tumour nodules using
1. Guerrero Urbano MT, Nutting CM. Clinical use of intensity intensity modulated radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2002;75:
modulated radiotherapy: part I. Br J Radiol 2004;77:8896. 15161.
2. Ling CC, Burman C, Chui CS, Kutcher GJ, Leibel SA, 17. Budgell GJ, Mott JH, Logue JP, Hounsell AR. Clinical
LoSasso T, et al. Conformal radiation treatment of prostate implementation of dynamic multileaf collimation for com-
cancer using inversely-planned intensity-modulated photon pensated bladder treatments. Radiother Oncol 2001;59:318.
beams produced with dynamic multileaf collimation. Int 18. Muren LP, Hafslund R, Gustafsson A, Smaaland R, Dahl O.
J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996;35:72130. Partially wedged beams improve radiotherapy treatment of
3. Stein J, Mohan R, Wang XH, Bortfeld T, Wu Q, Preiser K, urinary bladder cancer. Radiother Oncol 2001;59:2130.
et al. Number and orientations of beams in intensity- 19. Low DA, Grigsby PW, Dempsey JF, Mutic S, Williamson JF,
modulated radiation treatments. Med Phys 1997;24:14960. Markman J, et al. Applicator-guided intensity-modulated
4. Burman C, Chui CS, Kutcher G, Leibel S, Zelefsky M, radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;52:
LoSasso T, et al. Planning, delivery, and quality assurance of 14006.
intensity-modulated radiotherapy using dynamic multileaf 20. Portelance L, Chao KS, Grigsby PW, Bennet H, Low D.
collimator: a strategy for large-scale implementation for the Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) reduces small
treatment of carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol bowel, rectum, and bladder doses in patients with cervical
Biol Phys 1997;39:86373. cancer receiving pelvic and para-aortic irradiation. Int
5. Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Happersett L, Lee HJ, Ling CC, J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;51:2616.
Burman CM, et al. Clinical experience with intensity 21. Roeske JC, Lujan A, Rotmensch J, Waggoner SE, Yamada D,
modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in prostate cancer. Mundt AJ. Intensity modulated whole pelvic radiation
Radiother Oncol 2000;55:2419. therapy in patients with gynecologic malignancies. Int
6. Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Hunt M, Lee HJ, Lombardi D, J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;48:161321.
Ling CC, et al. High dose radiation delivered by intensity 22. Mutic S, Malyapa RS, Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F, Miller TR,
modulated conformal radiotherapy improves the outcome of Zoberi I, et al. PET-guided IMRT for cervical carcinoma with
localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2001;166:87681. positive para-aortic lymph nodes-a dose-escalation treatment
7. Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Hunt M, Yamada Y, Marion C, planning study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;55:2835.
Ling CC, et al. High-dose intensity modulated radiation 23. Aoki T, Nagata Y, Mizowaki T, Kokubo M, Negoro Y,
therapy for prostate cancer: early toxicity and biochemical Takayama K, et al. Clinical evaluation of dynamic arc
outcome in 772 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys conformal radiotherapy for paraaortic lymph node metasta-
2002;53:11116. sis. Radiother Oncol 2003;67:1138.
8. DAmico, Chen M, Oh-Ung J, Renshaw AA, Cote K, 24. Hong L, Alektiar K, Chui C, LoSasso T, Hunt M, Spirou S,
Loffredo M, et al. Changing prostate specific antigen outcome et al. IMRT of large fields: whole-abdomen irradiation. Int
after surgery or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:27889.
during the prostate specific antigen era. Int J Radiat Oncol 25. Mundt AJ, Roeske JC, Lujan AE, Yamada SD, Waggoner SE,
Biol Phys 2003;54:43641. Fleming G, et al. Initial clinical experience with intensity-
9. De Meerleer GO, Vakaet LA, De Gersem WR, De Wagter C, modulated whole-pelvis radiation therapy in women with
De Naeyer B, De Neve W. Radiotherapy of prostate cancer gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 2001;82:45663.
with or without intensity modulated beams: a planning 26. Mundt AJ, Lujan AE, Rotmensch J, Waggoner SE, Yamada
comparison. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;47:63948. SD, Fleming G, et al. Intensity-modulated whole pelvic
10. Kupelian PA, Reddy CA, Klein EA, Willoughby TR. Short- radiotherapy in women with gynecologic malignancies. Int
course intensity-modulated radiotherapy (70 Gy at 2.5 Gy per J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;52:13307.
fraction) for localized prostate cancer: preliminary results on 27. Brixey CJ, Roeske JC, Lujan AE, Yamada SD, Rotmensch J,
late toxicity and quality of life. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Mundt AJ. Impact of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on
2001;51:98893. acute hematologic toxicity in women with gynecologic
11. Bastasch MD, Teh BS, Mai WY, Carpenter LS, Lu HH, Chiu malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:138896.
JK, et al. Post-nerve-sparing prostatectomy, dose-escalated 28. Chao KS, Lin M. Lymphangiogram-assisted lymph node
intensity-modulated radiotherapy: effect on erectile function. target delineation for patients with gynecologic malignancies.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:1016. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:114752.

The British Journal of Radiology, March 2004 181

M T Guerrero Urbano and C M Nutting

29. Nutting CM, Bedford JL, Cosgrove VP, Tait DM, 44. Evans PM, Donovan EM, Fenton N, Hansen VN, Moore I,
Dearnaley DP, Webb S. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy Partridge M, et al. Practical implementation of compensators
reduces lung irradiation in patients with carcinoma of the in breast radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 1998;49:25565.
oesophagus. Front Radiat Ther Oncol 2002;37:12831. 45. Evans PM, Donovan EM, Partridge M, Childs PJ,
30. Zurlo A, Lomax A, Hoess A, Bortfeld T, Russo M, Convery DJ, Eagle S, et al. The delivery of intensity
Goitein G, et al. The role of proton therapy in the treatment modulated radiotherapy to the breast using multiple static
of large irradiation volumes: a comparative planning study of fields. Radiother Oncol 2000;57:7989.
pancreatic and biliary tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 46. Donovan EM, Johnson U, Shentall G, Evans PM, Neal AJ,
2000;48:27788. Yarnold JR. Evaluation of compensation in breast radio-
31. Landry JC, Yang GY, Ting JY, Staley CA, Torres W, therapy: a planning study using multiple static fields. Int
Esiashvili N, et al. Treatment of pancreatic cancer tumors J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;46:6719.
with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using the 47. Hong L, Hunt M, Chui C, Spirou S, Forster K, Lee H, et al.
volume at risk approach (VARA): employing dose-volume Intensity-modulated tangential beam irradiation of the intact
histogram (DVH) and normal tissue complication probability breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;44:115564.
(NTCP) to evaluate small bowel toxicity. Med Dosim 48. Li JG, Williams SS, Goffinet DR, Boyer AL, Xing L. Breast-
2002;27:1219. conserving radiation therapy using combined electron and
32. Crane CH, Mason K, Janjan NA, Milas L. Initial experience intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique. Radiother Oncol
combining cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition with chemoradiation 2000;56:6571.
for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 49. Lo YC, Yasuda G, Fitzgerald TJ, Urie MM. Intensity
2003;26:S814. modulation for breast treatment using static multi-leaf
33. Dorr W, Herrmann T. Cancer induction by radiotherapy: collimators. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;46:18794.
dose dependence and spatial relationship to irradiated volume. 50. Kestin LL, Sharpe MB, Frazier RC, Vicini FA, Yan D,
J Radiol Prot 2002;22:A11721. Matter RC, et al. Intensity modulation to improve dose
34. Verellen D, Vanhavere F. Risk assessment of radiation- uniformity with tangential breast radiotherapy: initial clinical
induced malignancies based on whole-body equivalent dose experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000;48:155968.
estimates for IMRT treatment in the head and neck region. 51. Chui CS, Spirou SV. Inverse planning algorithms for external
Radiother Oncol 1999;53:199203. beam radiation therapy. Med Dosim 2001;26:18997.
35. Hall EJ, Wuu CS. Radiation-induced second cancers: the 52. Landau D, Adams EJ, Webb S, Ross G. Cardiac avoidance in
impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys breast radiotherapy: a comparison of simple shielding tech-
2003;56:838. niques with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Radiother
36. Favourable, unfavourable effects on long-term survival of radio- Oncol 2001;60:24755.
therapy for early breast cancer, an overview of the randomised 53. Stemmer SM, Rizel S, Hardan I, Adamo A, Neumann A,
trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group. Goffman J, et al. The role of irradiation of the internal
Lancet 2000;355:175770. mammary lymph nodes in high-risk stage II to IIIA breast
37. Overgaard M, Christensen JJ, Johansen H, Nybo-Rasmussen cancer patients after high-dose chemotherapy: a prospective
A, Rose C, van der Kooy P, et al. Evaluation of radiotherapy sequential nonrandomized study. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:
in high-risk breast cancer patients: report from the Danish 27138.
Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG 82) Trial. Int 54. Remouchamps VM, Letts N, Vicini FA, Sharpe MB,
J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1990;19:11214. Kestin LL, Chen PY, et al. Initial clinical experience with
38. Overgaard M, Jensen MB, Overgaard J, Hansen PS, Rose C, moderate deep-inspiration breath hold using an active
Andersson M, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy in high-risk breathing control device in the treatment of patients with
postmenopausal breast-cancer patients given adjuvant tamo- left-sided breast cancer using external beam radiation therapy.
xifen: Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group DBCG 82c Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;56:70415.
randomised trial. Lancet 1999;353:16418. 55. Krueger EA, Fraass BA, McShan DL, Marsh R, Pierce LJ.
39. Ragaz J, Jackson SM, Le N, Plenderleith IH, Spinelli JJ, Potential gains for irradiation of chest wall and regional
Basco VE, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy in nodes with intensity modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat
node-positive premenopausal women with breast cancer. N Oncol Biol Phys 2003;56:102337.
Engl J Med 1997;337:95662. 56. Hurkmans CW, Cho BC, Damen E, Zijp L, Mijnheer BJ.
40. Hojris I, Overgaard M, Christensen JJ, Overgaard J. Reduction of cardiac and lung complication probabilities
Morbidity and mortality of ischaemic heart disease in high- after breast irradiation using conformal radiotherapy with or
risk breast-cancer patients after adjuvant postmastectomy without intensity modulation. Radiother Oncol 2002;62:
systemic treatment with or without radiotherapy: analysis of 16371.
DBCG 82b and 82c randomised trials. Radiotherapy 57. Vicini FA, Sharpe M, Kestin L, Martinez A, Mitchell CK,
Committee of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Wallace MF, et al. Optimizing breast cancer treatment
Group. Lancet 1999;354:142530. efficacy with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat
41. Woodward WA, Strom EA, McNeese MD, Perkins GH, Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:133644.
Outlaw EL, Hortobagyi GN, et al. Cardiovascular death and 58. Yarnold JR, Donovan EM, Reise S, et al. Randomised trial
second non-breast cancer malignancy after postmastectomy of standard 2D radiotherapy versus 3D intensity modulated
radiation and doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. Int J Radiat radiotherapy in patients prescribed breast radiotherapy.
Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57:32735. Radiother Oncol 2002;65:(S15)64.
42. Neal AJ, Torr M, Helyer S, Yarnold JR. Correlation of 59. Donovan EM, Bleackley NJ, Evans PM, Reise SF,
breast dose heterogeneity with breast size using 3D CT Yarnold JR. Dose-position and dose-volume histogram
planning and dose-volume histograms. Radiother Oncol analysis of standard wedged and intensity modulated treat-
1995;34:2108. ments in breast radiotherapy. Br J Radiol 2002;75:96773.
43. Evans PM, Hansen VN, Mayles WP, Swindell W, Torr M, 60. Teh BS, Lu HH, Sobremonte S, Bellezza D, Chiu JK,
Yarnold JR. Design of compensators for breast radiotherapy Carpenter LS, et al. The potential use of intensity modulated
using electronic portal imaging. Radiother Oncol 1995;37: radiotherapy (IMRT) in women with pectus excavatum
4354. desiring breast-conserving therapy. Breast J 2001;7:2339.

182 The British Journal of Radiology, March 2004