Literature DB >> 18640499

Dosimetric comparison of bone marrow-sparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus conventional techniques for treatment of cervical cancer.

Loren K Mell1, Hanifi Tiryaki, Kang-Hyun Ahn, Arno J Mundt, John C Roeske, Bulent Aydogan.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare bone marrow-sparing intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy (BMS-IMRT) with conventional (four-field box and anteroposterior-posteroanterior [AP-PA]) techniques in the treatment of cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The data from 7 cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent chemotherapy and IMRT without BMS were analyzed and compared with data using four-field box and AP-PA techniques. All plans were normalized to cover the planning target volume with the 99% isodose line. The clinical target volume consisted of the pelvic and presacral lymph nodes, uterus and cervix, upper vagina, and parametrial tissue. Normal tissues included bowel, bladder, and pelvic bone marrow (PBM), which comprised the lumbosacral spine and ilium and the ischium, pubis, and proximal femora (lower pelvis bone marrow). Dose-volume histograms for the planning target volume and normal tissues were compared for BMS-IMRT vs. four-field box and AP-PA plans.
RESULTS: BMS-IMRT was superior to the four-field box technique in reducing the dose to the PBM, small bowel, rectum, and bladder. Compared with AP-PA plans, BMS-IMRT reduced the PBM volume receiving a dose >16.4 Gy. BMS-IMRT reduced the volume of ilium, lower pelvis bone marrow, and bowel receiving a dose >27.7, >18.7, and >21.1 Gy, respectively, but increased dose below these thresholds compared with the AP-PA plans. BMS-IMRT reduced the volume of lumbosacral spine bone marrow, rectum, small bowel, and bladder at all dose levels in all 7 patients.
CONCLUSION: BMS-IMRT reduced irradiation of PBM compared with the four-field box technique. Compared with the AP-PA technique, BMS-IMRT reduced lumbosacral spine bone marrow irradiation and reduced the volume of PBM irradiated to high doses. Therefore BMS-IMRT might reduce acute hematologic toxicity compared with conventional techniques.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18640499     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.04.046

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


  50 in total

Review 1.  Chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer in 2010.

Authors:  Ann H Klopp; Patricia J Eifel
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 5.075

2.  Impact of bone marrow radiation dose on acute hematologic toxicity in cervical cancer: principal component analysis on high dimensional data.

Authors:  Yun Liang; Karen Messer; Brent S Rose; John H Lewis; Steve B Jiang; Catheryn M Yashar; Arno J Mundt; Loren K Mell
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2010-05-14       Impact factor: 7.038

3.  Vaginal displacement during course of adjuvant radiation for cervical cancer: results from a prospective IG-IMRT study.

Authors:  S Chopra; A Patidar; T Dora; N Moirangthem; S N Paul; R Engineer; U Mahantshetty; S K Shrivastava
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-08-19       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Dosimetric predictors of acute haematological toxicity in oesophageal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

Authors:  Jie Lee; Jhen-Bin Lin; Fang-Ju Sun; Kuo-Wei Lu; Chou-Hsien Lee; Yu-Jen Chen; Wen-Chien Huang; Hung-Chang Liu; Meng-Hao Wu
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-08-24       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 5.  The role of intensity modulated radiotherapy in gynecological radiotherapy: Present and future.

Authors:  Ana Fernandez-Ots; Juanita Crook
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2013-10-03

6.  Hematologic toxicity in RTOG 0418: a phase 2 study of postoperative IMRT for gynecologic cancer.

Authors:  Ann H Klopp; Jennifer Moughan; Lorraine Portelance; Brigitte E Miller; Mohammad R Salehpour; Evangeline Hildebrandt; Jenny Nuanjing; David D'Souza; Luis Souhami; William Small; Rakesh Gaur; Anuja Jhingran
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Radiotherapy dose escalation with concurrent chemotherapy in locally advanced cervix cancer is feasible.

Authors:  M W Hegazy; R I Mahmood; I A Al-Badawi; B Moftah; H AlHusaini
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 3.405

8.  Plan comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (RapidArc) and conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in anal canal cancer.

Authors:  Sabine Vieillot; David Azria; Claire Lemanski; Carmen Llacer Moscardo; Sophie Gourgou; Jean-Bernard Dubois; Norbert Aillères; Pascal Fenoglietto
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2010-10-13       Impact factor: 3.481

9.  Predictors of Hematologic Toxicity and Chemotherapy Dose Intensity in Patients Undergoing Chemoradiation for Pancreatic Cancer.

Authors:  Talha Shaikh; Lora S Wang; Brian Egleston; Meher Burki; John P Hoffman; Steven J Cohen; Joshua E Meyer
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.339

10.  Whole pelvic helical tomotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer: technical implementation of IMRT with helical tomotherapy.

Authors:  Chen-Hsi Hsieh; Ming-Chow Wei; Hsing-Yi Lee; Sheng-Mou Hsiao; Chien-An Chen; Li-Ying Wang; Yen-Ping Hsieh; Tung-Hu Tsai; Yu-Jen Chen; Pei-Wei Shueng
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2009-12-10       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.