Sequentially delivered boost plans are superior to simultaneously delivered plans in head and neck cancer when the boost volume is located further away from the parotid glands.

Objective: To find parameters that predict which head and neck patients benefit from a sequentially delivered boost treatment plan compared to a simultaneously delivered plan, with the aim to spare the salivary glands.

Methods: We evaluated 50 recently treated head and neck cancer patients. Apart from the clinical plan with a sequentially (SEQ) given boost using an Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Technique (IMRT), a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) technique plan was constructed with the same beam set-up. The mean dose to the parotid glands was calculated and compared. The elective nodal areas were bilateral in all cases, with a boost on either one side or both sides of the neck.

Results: When the parotid gland volume and the Planning Target Volume (PTV) for the boost overlap there is on average a lower dose to the parotid gland with a SIB technique (-1.2 Gy), which is, however, not significant (p=0.08). For all parotid glands with no boost PTV overlap, there is a benefit from a SEQ technique compared to a SIB technique for the gland evaluated (on average a 2.5 Gy lower dose to the parotid gland, p<0.001). When the distance between gland and PTV is 0-1 cm, this difference is on average 0.8 Gy, for 1-2 cm distance 2.9 Gy and for glands with a distance greater than 2 cm, 3.3 Gy. When the lymph nodes on the evaluated side are also included in the boost PTV, however, this relationship between the distance and the gain of a SEQ seems less clear.

Conclusions: A sequentially delivered boost technique results in a better treatment plan for most cases, compared to a simultaneous integrated boost IMRT technique, if the boost PTV is more than 1 cm away from at least one parotid gland.