Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 21, 2026
A Mouse Model of Incompletely Resected Soft Tissue Sarcoma for Testing (Neo)adjuvant Therapies
Published on: July 28, 2020
Comparison of conventional radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for post-operative radiotherapy for
Alexandra J Stewart1, Young K Lee, Frank H Saran
1St. Luke's Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Surrey, UK. alexandra.stewart@royalsurrey.nhs.uk
Introduction:
Doses in conventional radiotherapy for extremity soft tissue sarcoma (STS) potentially exceed normal tissue tolerances. This study compares 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in optimising target volume coverage and minimising integral dose to organs-at-risk (OAR).
Methods And Materials:
Ten patients undergoing post-operative radiotherapy for extremity STS were assessed. PTV(1) was defined as tumour bed plus 5cm superiorly/inferiorly and 3cm circumferentially, PTV(2) was defined as 2cm isotropically. OAR were defined as whole femur, neurovascular bundle, tissue corridor and normal tissue outside PTV(1). For each patient 2-phase 3D-CRT was compared to 2/3 field (2/3f) and 4/5 field (4/5f) IMRT with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB). The primary planning objective was to minimise femur and skin corridor dose. Volumetric analysis and conformity and heterogeneity indices were used for plan comparison.
Results:
A planning protocol containing dose/volume constraints for target and OAR was defined. 4/5f IMRT showed greatest conformity and homogeneity. IMRT resulted in significantly lower femur V45 using 2/3f (p=0.01) and 4/5f (p=0.0009) than 3D-CRT. 4/5f IMRT resulted in significantly lower normal tissue V55 (p=0.004) and maximum dose (p=0.04) than 3D-CRT.
Conclusions:
A reproducible set of planning guidelines and dose-volume constraints for 3D-CRT and IMRT planning for extremity sarcomas was devised. 4/5f IMRT with SIB resulted in better target coverage and significantly decreased OAR dose. Further evaluation of this technique within a clinical trial is recommended to demonstrate that the technical benefit of the more complex technique translates into patient-derived benefit by reducing late toxicity.
