Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak ( for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 20, Number 2, 2015

Prospective study on dosimetric comparison of helical tomotherapy and 3DCRT for craniospinal irradiation – A single institution experience

Anna Bandurska-Luque, Tomasz Piotrowski, Agnieszka Skrobała, Adam Ryczkowski, Krystyna Adamska, Joanna Kaźmierska



This prospective study aims to assess feasibility of helical tomotherapy (HT) for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) and perform dosimetric comparison of treatment plans for both HT and 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT).


CSI is a challenging procedure. Large PTV size requires field matching due to technical limitations of standard linear accelerators, which cannot irradiate such volumes as a single field. HT could help to avoid these limitations as irradiation of long fields is possible without field matching.

Materials and methods

Three adults were enrolled from 2009 to 2010. All patients received radiochemotherapy. Treatment plans in prone position for 3DCRT and in supine position for HT were generated. The superior plan was used for patients’ irradiation. Plans were compared with the application of DVH, Dx parameters – where x represents a percentage of the structure volume receiving a normalized dose and homogeneity index (HI).


All patients received HT irradiation. The treatment was well tolerated. The HT plans resulted in a better dose coverage and uniformity in the PTV: HI were 5.4, 7.8, 6.8 for HT vs. 10.3, 6.6, 10.4 for 3DCRT. For most organs at risk (OARs), the D(V80) was higher for HT than for 3DCRT, whereas D(V5) was lower for HT.


HT is feasible for CSI, and in comparison with 3DCRT it improves PTV coverage. HT reduces high dose volumes of OARs, but larger volumes of normal tissue receive low radiation dose. HT requires further study to establish correlations between dosimetrical findings and clinical outcomes, especially with regard to late sequelae of treatment.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2015; 20(2) : 145-152

« back


Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.