Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024
Relationship between hydrogel spacer distribution and dosimetric parameters in linear-accelerator-based stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Ohira Shingo, Yamashita Hideomi, Minamitani Masanari, Sawayanagi Subaru, Ogita Mami, Imae Toshikazu, Katano Atsuto, Nozawa Yuki, Ohta Takeshi, Nawa Kanabu, Nishio Teiji, Koizumi Masahiko, Nakagawa Keiichi
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To explore the potential of quantitative parameters of the hydrogel spacer distribution as predictors for separating the rectum from the planning target volume (PTV) in linear-accelerator-based stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer.
METHODS: Fifty-five patients underwent insertion of a hydrogel spacer and were divided into groups 1 and 2 of the PTV separated from and overlapping with the rectum, respectively. Prescribed doses of 36.25-45 Gy in five fractions were delivered to the PTV. The spacer cover ratio (SCR) and hydrogel-implant quality score (HIQS) were calculated.
RESULTS: Dosimetric and quantitative parameters of the hydrogel spacer distribution were compared between the two groups. For PTV, D99% in group 1 (n = 29) was significantly higher than that in group 2 (n = 26), and Dmax, D0.03cc, D1cc, and D10% for the rectum were significantly lower in group 1 than in group 2. The SCR for prostate (89.5 ± 12.2%) in group 1 was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than that in group 2 (74.7 ± 10.3%). In contrast, the HIQS values did not show a significant difference between the groups. An area under the curve of 0.822 (95% confidence interval, 0.708-0.936) for the SCR was obtained with a cutoff of 93.6%, sensitivity of 62.1%, and specificity of 100%.
CONCLUSIONS: The SCR seems promising to predict the separation of the rectum from the PTV in linear-accelerator-based SBRT for prostate cancer.
METHODS: Fifty-five patients underwent insertion of a hydrogel spacer and were divided into groups 1 and 2 of the PTV separated from and overlapping with the rectum, respectively. Prescribed doses of 36.25-45 Gy in five fractions were delivered to the PTV. The spacer cover ratio (SCR) and hydrogel-implant quality score (HIQS) were calculated.
RESULTS: Dosimetric and quantitative parameters of the hydrogel spacer distribution were compared between the two groups. For PTV, D99% in group 1 (n = 29) was significantly higher than that in group 2 (n = 26), and Dmax, D0.03cc, D1cc, and D10% for the rectum were significantly lower in group 1 than in group 2. The SCR for prostate (89.5 ± 12.2%) in group 1 was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than that in group 2 (74.7 ± 10.3%). In contrast, the HIQS values did not show a significant difference between the groups. An area under the curve of 0.822 (95% confidence interval, 0.708-0.936) for the SCR was obtained with a cutoff of 93.6%, sensitivity of 62.1%, and specificity of 100%.
CONCLUSIONS: The SCR seems promising to predict the separation of the rectum from the PTV in linear-accelerator-based SBRT for prostate cancer.