Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2015
Utrecht Interstitial Applicator Shifts and DVH Parameter Changes in 3D CT-based HDR Brachytherapy of Cervical Cancer.
СтатьяПоддержка 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.
Shi Dan, He Ming-Yuan, Zhao Zhi-Peng, Wu Ning, Zhao Hong-Fu, Xu Zhi-Jian, Cheng Guang-Hui
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: For brachytherapy of cervical cancer, applicator shifts can not be avoided. The present investigation concerned Utrecht interstitial applicator shifts and their effects on organ movement and DVH parameters during 3D CT-based HDR brachytherapy of cervical cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: After the applicator being implanted, CT imaging was achieved for oncologist contouring CTVhr, CTVir, and OAR, including bladder, rectum, sigmoid colon and small intestines. After the treatment, CT imaging was repeated to determine applicator shifts and OARs movements. Two CT images were matched by pelvic structures. In both imaging results, we defined the tandem by the tip and the base as the marker point, and evaluated applicator shift, including X, Y and Z. Based on the repeated CT imaging, oncologist contoured the target volume and OARs again. We combined the treatment plan with the repeated CT imaging and evaluated the change range for the doses of CTVhr D90, D2cc of OARs.
RESULTS: The average applicator shift was -0.16 mm to 0.10 mm for X, 1.49 mm to 2.14 mm for Y, and 1.9 mm to 2.3 mm for Z. The change of average physical doses and EQD2 values in Gyα/β range for CTVhr D90 decreased by 2.55 % and 3.5 %, bladder D2cc decreased by 5.94 % and 8.77 %, rectum D2cc decreased by 2.94 % and 4 %, sigmoid colon D2cc decreased by 3.38 % and 3.72 %, and small intestines D2cc increased by 3.72 % and 10.94 %.
CONCLUSIONS: Applicator shifts and DVH parameter changes induced the total dose inaccurately and could not be ignored. The doses of target volume and OARs varied inevitably.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: After the applicator being implanted, CT imaging was achieved for oncologist contouring CTVhr, CTVir, and OAR, including bladder, rectum, sigmoid colon and small intestines. After the treatment, CT imaging was repeated to determine applicator shifts and OARs movements. Two CT images were matched by pelvic structures. In both imaging results, we defined the tandem by the tip and the base as the marker point, and evaluated applicator shift, including X, Y and Z. Based on the repeated CT imaging, oncologist contoured the target volume and OARs again. We combined the treatment plan with the repeated CT imaging and evaluated the change range for the doses of CTVhr D90, D2cc of OARs.
RESULTS: The average applicator shift was -0.16 mm to 0.10 mm for X, 1.49 mm to 2.14 mm for Y, and 1.9 mm to 2.3 mm for Z. The change of average physical doses and EQD2 values in Gyα/β range for CTVhr D90 decreased by 2.55 % and 3.5 %, bladder D2cc decreased by 5.94 % and 8.77 %, rectum D2cc decreased by 2.94 % and 4 %, sigmoid colon D2cc decreased by 3.38 % and 3.72 %, and small intestines D2cc increased by 3.72 % and 10.94 %.
CONCLUSIONS: Applicator shifts and DVH parameter changes induced the total dose inaccurately and could not be ignored. The doses of target volume and OARs varied inevitably.