Practical radiation oncology · 2021
Higher Dose to Organs at Risk: The Unintended Consequences of Intravenous Contrast Use in Computed Tomography Simulation 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.
Wang Dunhuang, Yang Bo, Wang Weiping, Liu Xiaoliang, Liang Yongguang, Sun Shuai, Ma Jiabin, Zhou Bing, Hu Ke, Zhang Fuquan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the volumes of interest and doses to the organs at risk on contrast and noncontrast scans in patients with cervical cancer who underwent prophylactic extended-field radiation therapy (EFRT).
METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed twenty cervical cancer patients treated with prophylactic EFRT at Peking Union Medical College Hospital between March 2021 and April 2021. Each patient underwent noncontrast and contrast scans during simulation. All structures were contoured, and radiation therapy plans were created based on both scans. Student t test and Pearson correlation coefficient test were performed.
RESULTS: Compared with the noncontrast scan, on the contrast scan, the mean volume of the inferior vena cava expanded by 44% (P ≤ .001), and the mean volume of the para-aortic nodal clinical target volume increased by 17% (P ≤ .001). For the second portion of the duodenum, the V30 (38.2% vs 43.8%, P = .038), V35 (27.6% vs 35.1%, P = .002), V40 (18.3% vs 26.3%, P = .014), V45 (11.2% vs 18.5%, P = .008), and V50 (4.2% vs 9.1%, P = .005) were significantly lower on the noncontrast scan than on the contrast scan. For the third portion of the duodenum, the V45 (78.4% vs 81.6%, P = .03) and V50 (59.7% vs 67%, P ≤ .001) were significantly lower on the noncontrast scan than on the contrast scan. For the right kidney, the V5, V10, V15, V20, and V25 on the contrast and noncontrast scans were 85.4% versus 79.8% (P = .013), 52.5% versus 45.6% (P = .021), 25.6% versus 20.1% (P = .003), 11.1% versus 7.5% (P = .001), and 3.8% versus 2.3% (P = .027), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the noncontrast scan, expansion of the inferior vena cava on the contrast scan can lead to excessive contouring and an overdose to the duodenum and right kidney in cervical cancer patients treated with prophylactic EFRT.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: We reviewed twenty cervical cancer patients treated with prophylactic EFRT at Peking Union Medical College Hospital between March 2021 and April 2021. Each patient underwent noncontrast and contrast scans during simulation. All structures were contoured, and radiation therapy plans were created based on both scans. Student t test and Pearson correlation coefficient test were performed.
RESULTS: Compared with the noncontrast scan, on the contrast scan, the mean volume of the inferior vena cava expanded by 44% (P ≤ .001), and the mean volume of the para-aortic nodal clinical target volume increased by 17% (P ≤ .001). For the second portion of the duodenum, the V30 (38.2% vs 43.8%, P = .038), V35 (27.6% vs 35.1%, P = .002), V40 (18.3% vs 26.3%, P = .014), V45 (11.2% vs 18.5%, P = .008), and V50 (4.2% vs 9.1%, P = .005) were significantly lower on the noncontrast scan than on the contrast scan. For the third portion of the duodenum, the V45 (78.4% vs 81.6%, P = .03) and V50 (59.7% vs 67%, P ≤ .001) were significantly lower on the noncontrast scan than on the contrast scan. For the right kidney, the V5, V10, V15, V20, and V25 on the contrast and noncontrast scans were 85.4% versus 79.8% (P = .013), 52.5% versus 45.6% (P = .021), 25.6% versus 20.1% (P = .003), 11.1% versus 7.5% (P = .001), and 3.8% versus 2.3% (P = .027), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the noncontrast scan, expansion of the inferior vena cava on the contrast scan can lead to excessive contouring and an overdose to the duodenum and right kidney in cervical cancer patients treated with prophylactic EFRT.