Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2020
Dosimetric comparison of two different applicators and rectal retraction methods used in inverse optimization-based intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical 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.
Biltekin Fatih, Gultekin Melis, Yilmaz Melek Tugce, Yildiz Ferah
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric differences between two different applicators and rectal-retraction methods used in image-guided brachytherapy (IGBT) for locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten patients with LACC treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy and inverse optimization-based IGBT were included in this study. In each patient, at least one fraction of IGBT was performed using tandem-ovoids (TO) with vaginal gauze packing (VGP) or tandem-ring (TR) with rectal-retractor (RR). High-risk clinical target volume (CTVHR) and intermediate-risk CTV (CTVIR) were defined as CTVs, and bladder, rectum, sigmoid, small bowel, urethra, and vaginal mucosa were defined as organs at risk (OARs). All patients received 50.4 Gy external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in 28 fractions. After EBRT, 28 Gy high-dose-rate (HDR) IGBT in 4 fractions was delivered to central disease. A plan comparison was performed using dose-volume histogram (DVH) and treatment planning parameters for CTVs and OARs.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in D90 values of CTVHR. In terms of rectum dose, TR with RR was found to be significantly better than TO with VGP (p < 0.0001 for D2cm3 and p < 0.013 for V5Gy). Although, there were no statistically significant differences in D2cm3 value of bladder, sigmoid, small bowel, upper vaginal mucosa, and urethra, mean value of D2cm3 for all defined OARs were found lower in TR than in TO. Bladder V7Gy, upper vaginal mucosa V7Gy, middle and lower vaginal mucosa D2cm3 values were all found to be significantly lower for TR than for TO (p < 0.035). CTVHR and CTVIR volumes contoured in TR were approximately 11% and 9% smaller than TO, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that there were no statistically differences in D90 value of CTVHR and CTVIR. However, all DVH parameters for OARs in TR with RR were found to be better than in TO with VGP.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten patients with LACC treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy and inverse optimization-based IGBT were included in this study. In each patient, at least one fraction of IGBT was performed using tandem-ovoids (TO) with vaginal gauze packing (VGP) or tandem-ring (TR) with rectal-retractor (RR). High-risk clinical target volume (CTVHR) and intermediate-risk CTV (CTVIR) were defined as CTVs, and bladder, rectum, sigmoid, small bowel, urethra, and vaginal mucosa were defined as organs at risk (OARs). All patients received 50.4 Gy external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in 28 fractions. After EBRT, 28 Gy high-dose-rate (HDR) IGBT in 4 fractions was delivered to central disease. A plan comparison was performed using dose-volume histogram (DVH) and treatment planning parameters for CTVs and OARs.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in D90 values of CTVHR. In terms of rectum dose, TR with RR was found to be significantly better than TO with VGP (p < 0.0001 for D2cm3 and p < 0.013 for V5Gy). Although, there were no statistically significant differences in D2cm3 value of bladder, sigmoid, small bowel, upper vaginal mucosa, and urethra, mean value of D2cm3 for all defined OARs were found lower in TR than in TO. Bladder V7Gy, upper vaginal mucosa V7Gy, middle and lower vaginal mucosa D2cm3 values were all found to be significantly lower for TR than for TO (p < 0.035). CTVHR and CTVIR volumes contoured in TR were approximately 11% and 9% smaller than TO, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that there were no statistically differences in D90 value of CTVHR and CTVIR. However, all DVH parameters for OARs in TR with RR were found to be better than in TO with VGP.