OBJECTIVE: To compare three different techniques of irradiating @entity1661 . @entity1 AND METHODS: Six @entity1 with a median age of 4.1 years underwent radiotherapy (RT) to the primary site as part of treatment for high-risk @entity521 . Four had @entity601 while two had well-lateralized lesions. Three different RT techniques were compared. Technique A used parallel-opposed AP/PA fields prescribed to the midplane of the @entity1 . For Techniques B and C, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were developed using inverse treatment planning with a sliding window or dynamic multileaf collimator approach, seven coplanar beams, and a 0.25 x 0.5 cm minimum beam resolution. The clinical target volume (CTV) included the @entity5 present prior to second look surgery but after induction chemotherapy with a 1.5 cm margin. The planning target volume ( @entity343 ) was the CTV with a 0.5 cm margin. The CTV was planned to receive 100% of the prescribed dose. For Technique C, the vertebral bodies adjacent to the @entity5 were included in the @entity343 to minimize heterogeneity of dose. Six MV photons were used for all techniques. Bilateral kidneys, liver, spine, spleen, stomach and bilateral iliac crests were contoured. RESULTS: Dose to the @entity343 and CTV were not significantly different using the three techniques. In comparison to Technique A, Techniques B and C delivered a lower mean dose to the bilateral kidneys in the four @entity1 with midline @entity5 but not the two @entity1 with a lateralized @entity5 where the contralateral kidney received a higher mean dose. Dose to the spine was less homogeneous with Technique B compared to Techniques A and C. The spleen, liver and stomach mean doses were higher using Techniques B and C compared to Technique A. CONCLUSION: Although Technique C was the best method of RT delivery in midline @entity5 with respect to kidney doses, this was at a cost of a higher mean dose to the liver, stomach, and spleen. This, together with the theoretical increase in secondary @entity5 , should be considered when treating a @entity1 with IMRT techniques. IMRT was not found to be better than the conventional AP/PA field for lateralized @entity5 .

Comparison of conventional to intensity modulated radiation therapy for XXXX .

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['children', 'patient', 'PATIENTS', 'child'] @entity5 :: ('MESH:D009369', 'Disease') :: ['tumor', 'tumors', 'malignancies'] @entity1661 :: ('MESH:D000008', 'Disease') :: ['abdominal neuroblastoma'] @entity343 :: ('187978', 'Species') :: ['PTV'] @entity601 :: ('MESH:D009436', 'Disease') :: ['midline disease'] @entity521 :: ('MESH:D009447', 'Disease') :: ['neuroblastoma']
@entity1661 :: (MESH:D000008,Disease) :: ['abdominal neuroblastoma']
