Literature DB >> 19188240

The effect of treatment position, prone or supine, on dose-volume histograms for pelvic radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer.

M Drzymala1, M A Hawkins, A J Henrys, J Bedford, A Norman, D M Tait.   

Abstract

Patients undergoing radiotherapy for rectal cancer are generally treated in a prone position, with a full bladder, to reduce the volume of normal bowel in the high-dose volume. This position is difficult to maintain, and is not consistently reproducible. This study evaluates the volume of bowel and dose received in the prone and supine positions in patients undergoing pre-operative rectal cancer chemoradiation. Using CT planning, 19 consecutive patients with rectal cancer with a full bladder underwent CT scanning first in the prone position and then immediately afterwards in the supine position. The planning target volume was outlined for the prone position and transcribed to the supine scan using pre-set criteria. The bladder and small bowel were outlined in both positions. Radiotherapy was planned using three-dimensional conformal planning, and treatment was delivered using three fields with multileaf collimators in two phases: phase I, pelvis 45 Gy/25 fractions; and phase II, tumour 9 Gy/five fractions. For both positions, the volume of bowel receiving doses in 5 Gy increments from 5-45 Gy was calculated using dose-volume histograms. At 5 Gy and 10 Gy dose levels, a significantly higher volume of bowel was irradiated in the supine position (p<0.001). At 15 Gy, it was marginally significant (p = 0.018). From 20-45 Gy, there was no significant difference in the volume of bowel irradiated with each 5 Gy increment. This study demonstrates that the volume of bowel irradiated at doses associated with bowel toxicity in concurrent chemoradiation is not significantly higher in the supine position. This position could be adopted for patients undergoing pre-operative rectal cancer chemoradiation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19188240     DOI: 10.1259/bjr/57848689

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  13 in total

1.  A treatment planning study of prone vs. supine positions for locally advanced rectal carcinoma : Comparison of 3‑dimensional conformal radiotherapy, tomotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Authors:  Sergiu Scobioala; Christopher Kittel; Philipp Niermann; Heidi Wolters; Katharina Helene Susek; Uwe Haverkamp; Hans Theodor Eich
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 3.621

2.  Influence of position and radiation technique on organs at risk in radiotherapy of rectal cancer.

Authors:  Jun-Feng Wang; Hui Li; Hua Xiong; He Huang; Yan-Mei Zou
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2016-10-18

Review 3.  A critical literature review on the use of bellyboard devices to control small bowel dose for pelvic radiotherapy.

Authors:  Matthew Hoffmann; Kim Waller; Andrew Last; Justin Westhuyzen
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2020-05-19

4.  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

5.  Bladder filling variations during concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiotherapy in rectal cancer patients: early experience of bladder volume assessment using ultrasound scanner.

Authors:  Jee Suk Chang; Hong In Yoon; Hye Jung Cha; Yoonsun Chung; Yeona Cho; Ki Chang Keum; Woong Sub Koom
Journal:  Radiat Oncol J       Date:  2013-03-31

6.  Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for rectal carcinoma can reduce treatment breaks and emergency department visits.

Authors:  Salma K Jabbour; Shyamal Patel; Joseph M Herman; Aaron Wild; Suneel N Nagda; Taghrid Altoos; Ahmet Tunceroglu; Nilofer Azad; Susan Gearheart; Rebecca A Moss; Elizabeth Poplin; Lydia L Levinson; Ravi A Chandra; Dirk F Moore; Chunxia Chen; Bruce G Haffty; Richard Tuli
Journal:  Int J Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-08-13

7.  Evaluating Variations of Bladder Volume Using an Ultrasound Scanner in Rectal Cancer Patients during Chemoradiation: Is Protocol-Based Full Bladder Maintenance Using a Bladder Scanner Useful to Maintain the Bladder Volume?

Authors:  Hong In Yoon; Yoonsun Chung; Jee Suk Chang; Joo Yong Lee; Soo Jung Park; Woong Sub Koom
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  ACR appropriateness criteria®  resectable rectal cancer.

Authors:  William E Jones; Charles R Thomas; Joseph M Herman; May Abdel-Wahab; Nilofer Azad; William Blackstock; Prajnan Das; Karyn A Goodman; Theodore S Hong; Salma K Jabbour; Andre A Konski; Albert C Koong; Miguel Rodriguez-Bigas; William Small; Jennifer Zook; W Warren Suh
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2012-09-24       Impact factor: 3.481

9.  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

10.  Lapatinib-capecitabine versus capecitabine alone as radiosensitizers in RAS wild-type resectable rectal cancer, an adaptive randomized phase II trial (LaRRC trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Nuno Sousa; Olga Sousa; Lúcio Lara Santos; Rui Henrique; Manuel R Teixeira; Mário Dinis-Ribeiro; Armando Teixeira-Pinto
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.