PURPOSE: To evaluate prostate position variability and dose-volume histograms in prostate radiotherapy with full bladder (FB) and empty bladder (EB). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty patients underwent planning computed tomography scans in a supine position with FB and EB before and after 4 and 8 weeks of radiation therapy. The scans were matched by alignment of pelvic bones. Displacements of the prostate/seminal vesicle organ borders and center of mass were determined. Treatment plans (FB vs. EB) were compared. RESULTS: Compared with the primary scan, FB volume varied more than EB volume (standard deviation, 106 cm3 vs. 47 cm3), but the prostate/seminal vesicle center of mass position variability was the same (> 3 mm deviation in right-left, anterior-posterior, and superior-inferior directions in 0, 41%, and 33%, respectively, with FB vs. 0, 44%, and 33% with EB). The bladder volume treated with 90% of the prescription dose was significantly larger with EB (39% +/- 14% vs. 22% +/- 10%; p < 0.01). Bowel loops received > or = 90% of prescription dose in 37% (3% with FB; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Despite the larger variability of bladder filling, prostate position stability was the same with FB compared with EB. An increased amount of bladder volume in the high-dose region and a higher dose to bowel loops result from treatment plans with EB.
PURPOSE: To evaluate prostate position variability and dose-volume histograms in prostate radiotherapy with full bladder (FB) and empty bladder (EB). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty patients underwent planning computed tomography scans in a supine position with FB and EB before and after 4 and 8 weeks of radiation therapy. The scans were matched by alignment of pelvic bones. Displacements of the prostate/seminal vesicle organ borders and center of mass were determined. Treatment plans (FB vs. EB) were compared. RESULTS: Compared with the primary scan, FB volume varied more than EB volume (standard deviation, 106 cm3 vs. 47 cm3), but the prostate/seminal vesicle center of mass position variability was the same (> 3 mm deviation in right-left, anterior-posterior, and superior-inferior directions in 0, 41%, and 33%, respectively, with FB vs. 0, 44%, and 33% with EB). The bladder volume treated with 90% of the prescription dose was significantly larger with EB (39% +/- 14% vs. 22% +/- 10%; p < 0.01). Bowel loops received > or = 90% of prescription dose in 37% (3% with FB; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Despite the larger variability of bladder filling, prostate position stability was the same with FB compared with EB. An increased amount of bladder volume in the high-dose region and a higher dose to bowel loops result from treatment plans with EB.
Authors: S Hynds; C K McGarry; D M Mitchell; S Early; L Shum; D P Stewart; J A Harney; C R Cardwell; J M O'Sullivan Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: M Pinkawa; M D Piroth; R Holy; N Escobar-Corral; M Caffaro; V Djukic; J Klotz; M J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-08-31 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Marc D Piroth; Karin Fischedick; Richard Holy; Jens Klotz; Sandra Nussen; Barbara Krenkel; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Martin Pursch-Lee; Branka Asadpour; Bernd Gagel; Marc D Piroth; Jens Klotz; Sandra Nussen; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2008-12-24 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Peter F Orio; Gregory S Merrick; Zachariah A Allen; Wayne M Butler; Kent E Wallner; Brian S Kurko; Robert W Galbreath Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2009-07-22 Impact factor: 3.481