Brachytherapy · 2009
The effect of obesity on rectal dosimetry after permanent prostate brachytherapy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Patil Nikhilesh, Crook Juanita, Saibishkumar Elantholi P, Aneja Manipdip, Borg Jette, Pond Greg, Ma Clement
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Men with higher body mass index (BMI) tend to have more fatty tissue in prostate-rectum interface, which may reduce the rectal wall dose by the inverse square law. We hypothesized that men with higher BMI will have a lower dose to the rectal wall and less rectal toxicity after permanent prostate implant.
METHODS: Prospectively collected data on rectal dosimetry/toxicity and BMI of 407 patients who underwent iodine-125 ((125)I) prostate implant were analyzed. Postimplant dosimetry used CT-MRI fusion on Day 30. Rectal wall was contoured on all slices where seeds were seen. The volume of rectal wall receiving the prescribed dose (RV(100) in cm(3)) and the dose to 1cc of rectal wall (RD(1cc)) were reported. Other factors evaluated for association with rectal dosimetry and toxicity included age, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, use of neoadjuvant hormones, T stage, baseline prostate volume, 1 month prostate edema, seed type and activity, and prostate dosimetry factors (the isodose enclosing 90% of the prostate volume [D(90)], the percentage of the prostate volume enclosed by the prescription [V(100)], and the percentage of the prostate volume enclosed by the 150% isodose [V(150)]). Rectal toxicity was reported as per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria.
RESULTS: BMIs ranged from 15.9 to 46.8 (mean+/-standard deviation [SD]: 27.8+/-4.2). The mean+/-SD values for RV(100) and RD(1cc) were 0.79+/-0.49cm(3) and 128.2+/-27.8Gy, respectively. There was a significant negative association of BMI with RV(100) (p=0.007) and RD(1cc) (p=0.01) on univariate analysis. The mean RV(100) and RD(1cc) for men with higher BMI (>27.8) were lower compared with their slimmer counterparts (0.70 vs. 0.86cm(3) and 123.4 vs. 132.4Gy, respectively). On multivariate analysis for RV(100) and RD(1cc), BMI remained significant (p-values 0.004 and 0.01, respectively) along with prostate volume and V(150), suggesting that anatomic factors are important in rectal dosimetry in prostate brachytherapy. Overall the incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group acute rectal toxicity was 12% (Grade 2, 1.3%) and chronic 6% (Grade 2, 0.5%). No Grade 3 toxicity occurred. None of the factors evaluated were predictive for rectal toxicity.
CONCLUSION: Men with a lower BMI received a higher rectal wall dose compared with those with higher BMI. This did not, however, translate into greater rectal toxicity.
METHODS: Prospectively collected data on rectal dosimetry/toxicity and BMI of 407 patients who underwent iodine-125 ((125)I) prostate implant were analyzed. Postimplant dosimetry used CT-MRI fusion on Day 30. Rectal wall was contoured on all slices where seeds were seen. The volume of rectal wall receiving the prescribed dose (RV(100) in cm(3)) and the dose to 1cc of rectal wall (RD(1cc)) were reported. Other factors evaluated for association with rectal dosimetry and toxicity included age, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, use of neoadjuvant hormones, T stage, baseline prostate volume, 1 month prostate edema, seed type and activity, and prostate dosimetry factors (the isodose enclosing 90% of the prostate volume [D(90)], the percentage of the prostate volume enclosed by the prescription [V(100)], and the percentage of the prostate volume enclosed by the 150% isodose [V(150)]). Rectal toxicity was reported as per Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria.
RESULTS: BMIs ranged from 15.9 to 46.8 (mean+/-standard deviation [SD]: 27.8+/-4.2). The mean+/-SD values for RV(100) and RD(1cc) were 0.79+/-0.49cm(3) and 128.2+/-27.8Gy, respectively. There was a significant negative association of BMI with RV(100) (p=0.007) and RD(1cc) (p=0.01) on univariate analysis. The mean RV(100) and RD(1cc) for men with higher BMI (>27.8) were lower compared with their slimmer counterparts (0.70 vs. 0.86cm(3) and 123.4 vs. 132.4Gy, respectively). On multivariate analysis for RV(100) and RD(1cc), BMI remained significant (p-values 0.004 and 0.01, respectively) along with prostate volume and V(150), suggesting that anatomic factors are important in rectal dosimetry in prostate brachytherapy. Overall the incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group acute rectal toxicity was 12% (Grade 2, 1.3%) and chronic 6% (Grade 2, 0.5%). No Grade 3 toxicity occurred. None of the factors evaluated were predictive for rectal toxicity.
CONCLUSION: Men with a lower BMI received a higher rectal wall dose compared with those with higher BMI. This did not, however, translate into greater rectal toxicity.