Literature DB >> 17544595

Changes in the pelvic anatomy after an IMRT treatment fraction of prostate cancer.

Renaud de Crevoisier1, Adam D Melancon, Deborah A Kuban, Andrew K Lee, Rex M Cheung, Susan L Tucker, Rajat J Kudchadker, Wayne D Newhauser, Lifei Zhang, Radhe Mohan, Lei Dong.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To quantify the three-dimensional variations of pelvic anatomy after a single treatment fraction. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-six prostate cancer patients underwent computed tomography (CT) scanning with an in-room CT-on-rail system, before and immediately after one intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) session. To study the soft-tissue anatomy changes, the pre- and post-treatment CT images were registered using the bony structure with an in-house image registration software system. The center of volume for both the prostate and seminal vesicles was used to assess the relative displacement of the same structure after the treatment fraction.
RESULTS: During one treatment fraction (21 +/- 4 min), both the prostate and seminal vesicles showed statistically significant systematic trends in the superior and anterior directions of the patient's anatomy. The net increase in bladder volume was huge (127 +/- 79 cm(3)), yet this change did not translate into large target displacements. Although the population mean displacements in either direction were 1.3 +/- 2.9 mm for the prostate and 1.2 +/- 4.1 mm for the seminal vesicles in the anterior direction, a few patients had displacements as large as 8.4 mm and 15.6 mm, respectively. These large displacements correlated strongly (p < 0.001) with large rectal volume increases caused by gaseous build-up in the rectum.
CONCLUSION: The observed intrafraction variations in anatomy during prostate IMRT sessions suggest that, for any given fraction, the organ motion and volume changes can potentially lead to compromised target coverage in about 15% of patients in whom the prostate position shifted >4 mm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17544595     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.01.069

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


  8 in total

1.  [Translational uroradio-oncology].

Authors:  S E Combs; J Debus
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  Evolution of advanced technologies in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

Authors:  Nicholas G Zaorsky; Amy S Harrison; Edouard J Trabulsi; Leonard G Gomella; Timothy N Showalter; Mark D Hurwitz; Adam P Dicker; Robert B Den
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-09-10       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Assessment of the accuracy of an MCNPX-based Monte Carlo simulation model for predicting three-dimensional absorbed dose distributions.

Authors:  U Titt; N Sahoo; X Ding; Y Zheng; W D Newhauser; X R Zhu; J C Polf; M T Gillin; R Mohan
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-07-31       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Is a 3-mm intrafractional margin sufficient for daily image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy of prostate cancer?

Authors:  Adam D Melancon; Jennifer C O'Daniel; Lifei Zhang; Rajat J Kudchadker; Deborah A Kuban; Andrew K Lee; Rex M Cheung; Renaud de Crevoisier; Susan L Tucker; Wayne D Newhauser; Radhe Mohan; Lei Dong
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2007-09-24       Impact factor: 6.280

5.  Using cone-beam computed tomography to evaluate the impact of bladder filling status on target position in prostate radiotherapy.

Authors:  Chiao-Ling Tsai; Jian-Kuen Wu; Chun-Wei Wang; Feng-Ming Hsu; Ming-Kuen Lai; Jason Chia-Hsien Cheng
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2009-09-12       Impact factor: 3.621

6.  Intra-fraction setup variability: IR optical localization vs. X-ray imaging in a hypofractionated patient population.

Authors:  Maria Francesca Spadea; Barbara Tagaste; Marco Riboldi; Eleonora Preve; Daniela Alterio; Gaia Piperno; Cristina Garibaldi; Roberto Orecchia; Antonio Pedotti; Guido Baroni
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2011-04-15       Impact factor: 3.481

Review 7.  ACR Appropriateness Criteria® external beam radiation therapy treatment planning for clinically localized prostate cancer, part I of II.

Authors:  Nicholas G Zaorsky; Timothy N Showalter; Gary A Ezzell; Paul L Nguyen; Dean G Assimos; Anthony V D'Amico; Alexander R Gottschalk; Gary S Gustafson; Sameer R Keole; Stanley L Liauw; Shane Lloyd; Patrick W McLaughlin; Benjamin Movsas; Bradley R Prestidge; Al V Taira; Neha Vapiwala; Brian J Davis
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2016-10-20

Review 8.  ACR Appropriateness Criteria for external beam radiation therapy treatment planning for clinically localized prostate cancer, part II of II.

Authors:  Nicholas G Zaorsky; Timothy N Showalter; Gary A Ezzell; Paul L Nguyen; Dean G Assimos; Anthony V D'Amico; Alexander R Gottschalk; Gary S Gustafson; Sameer R Keole; Stanley L Liauw; Shane Lloyd; Patrick W McLaughlin; Benjamin Movsas; Bradley R Prestidge; Al V Taira; Neha Vapiwala; Brian J Davis
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2017-03-20
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.