Literature DB >> 10613312

Influence of patient positioning on dose-volume histogram and normal tissue complication probability for small bowel and bladder in patients receiving pelvic irradiation: a prospective study using a 3D planning system and a radiobiological model.

O Koelbl1, S Richter, M Flentje.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: A prospective study was undertaken to evaluate the influence of patient positioning (prone position using a belly board vs. supine position) on the dose-volume histograms (DVHs) of organs of risk, and to analyze its possible clinical relevance using radiobiological models. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From November 1996 to August 1997 a computed tomography (CT) scan was done in the prone position using a belly board and in supine position in 20 consecutive patients receiving postoperative pelvic irradiation because of rectal cancer. Using a three-dimensional (3D) planning system (Helax, TMS) the DVH for small bowel, bladder, a standard planning target volume (PTV) of postoperative irradiation of rectal cancer, the intersection of volume of PTV and small bowel (PTV intersection V(SB), respectively, of PTV and bladder (PTV intersection V(B)) were defined in each axial CT slice. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) was determined by the radiobiological model of Lyman and Kutcher using the tolerance data of Emami. For evaluation of late toxicity alpha/beta ratio was 2.5; for evaluation of acute toxicity, it was 10. Total dose was 50.4 Gy (1.8 Gy/fraction) (ICRU 50).
RESULTS: Using the prone position compared to the supine position, the median volume of PTV intersection V(B) was reduced by 18.5 cm3 (62%). Median dose (related to the reference dose) to the bladder was 44.5% (22.4 Gy) in prone and 66.05% (33.3 Gy) in supine position (p<0.001). Median V(B) within the 90% (45.4 Gy), 80% (40.3 Gy), 60% (30.2 Gy), and 40% (20.2 Gy) isodose was significantly lower in the prone position when compared to the supine position. Using the radiobiological models, however, there was no difference of NTCP between prone position or supine position. In the prone position, median volume of PTV intersection V(SB) was reduced by 32.5 cm3 (54%). The median dose to small bowel was 30.85% (15.4 Gy) in the prone position and 47.35% (23.9Gy) in the supine position (p<0.001). Significant differences between prone and supine position were found for median V(SB) within the 90% (45.4 Gy), 80% (40.3 Gy), 60% (30.2 Gy), and 40% (20.2 Gy) isodose. According to the method of Lyman, median NTCP of small bowel was significant lower in prone than in supine position.
CONCLUSION: The prone position with a standard belly board should be the standard positioning technique for patients receiving adjuvant postoperative radiation therapy following surgery of rectal cancer. Both irradiated volume and total dose to the organs of risk can be reduced significantly. As a consequence of this, radiation induced toxicity will be minimized.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10613312     DOI: 10.1016/s0360-3016(99)00345-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  12 in total

1.  Intensity-modulated radiotherapy with a belly board for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Joo Young Kim; Dae Yong Kim; Tae Hyun Kim; Sung Yong Park; Se Byeong Lee; Kyung Hwan Shin; Hongryull Pyo; Joo-Young Kim; Kwan Ho Cho
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2006-06-27       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Role of triamcinolone in radiation enteritis management.

Authors:  Eren Cetin; Aysen Sevgi Ozturk; Haluk Orhun; Sukran Ulger
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-04-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 3.  Gastrointestinal toxicity associated to radiation therapy.

Authors:  Mario López Rodríguez; Margarita Martín Martín; Laura Cerezo Padellano; Alicia Marín Palomo; Yamile Ibáñez Puebla
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.405

Review 4.  Late small bowel toxicity after adjuvant treatment for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Matthias Guckenberger; Michael Flentje
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2005-07-29       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Small bowel protection in IMRT for rectal cancer : A dosimetric study on supine vs. prone position.

Authors:  Julia Koeck; Katharina Kromer; Frank Lohr; Tobias Baack; Kerstin Siebenlist; Sabine Mai; Sylvia Büttner; Jens Fleckenstein; Frederik Wenz
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 3.621

6.  Sodium butyrate enemas in the treatment of acute radiation-induced proctitis in patients with prostate cancer and the impact on late proctitis. A prospective evaluation.

Authors:  Andrea Hille; Markus K A Herrmann; Tereza Kertesz; Hans Christiansen; Robert M Hermann; Olivier Pradier; Heinz Schmidberger; Clemens-F Hess
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2008-12-24       Impact factor: 3.621

7.  Morphologic change of rectosigmoid colon using belly board and distended bladder protocol.

Authors:  Yeona Cho; Jee Suk Chang; Mi Sun Kim; Jaehwan Lee; Hwakyung Byun; Nalee Kim; Sang Joon Park; Ki Chnag Keum; Woong Sub Koom
Journal:  Radiat Oncol J       Date:  2015-06-30

8.  Acute small-bowel toxicity during neoadjuvant combined radiochemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: determination of optimal dose-volume cut-off value predicting grade 2-3 diarrhoea.

Authors:  Tina Reis; Edwin Khazzaka; Grit Welzel; Frederik Wenz; Ralf-Dieter Hofheinz; Sabine Mai
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2015-01-31       Impact factor: 3.481

9.  Impact of prone versus supine positioning on small bowel dose with pelvic intensity modulated radiation therapy.

Authors:  Victor J Gonzalez; Craig R Hullett; Lindsay Burt; Prema Rassiah-Szegedi; Vikren Sarkar; Jonathan D Tward; Lisa J Hazard; Y Jessica Huang; Bill J Salter; David K Gaffney
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2017-01-24

10.  A randomized study of the effect of patient positioning on setup reproducibility and dose distribution to organs at risk in radiotherapy of rectal cancer patients.

Authors:  Trude C Frøseth; Trond Strickert; Kjersti S Solli; Øyvind Salvesen; Gunilla Frykholm; Randi J Reidunsdatter
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2015-10-27       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.