| Literature DB >> 20003321 |
Chen-Hsi Hsieh1, 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.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To review the experience and to evaluate the treatment plan of using helical tomotherapy (HT) for the treatment of cervical cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 20003321 PMCID: PMC2799427 DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-4-62
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Radiat Oncol ISSN: 1748-717X Impact factor: 3.481
Patient characteristics
| Variable | No. of patient (%) |
|---|---|
| Median (range) | 58 (33-72) |
| Female | 10 |
| < 70 | 0 |
| ≥ 70 | 10 |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 7 |
| Adenocarcinoma | 3 |
| Stage IIB | 9 |
| Stage IIIB | 1 |
| Medium length (range) | 5.5 cm |
| Medium depth (range) | 3.7 cm |
| Medium width (range) | 4.4 cm |
| Weekly cycles of chemotherapy | |
| 5 weeks | 5 |
| 4 weeks | 2 |
| 3 weeks | 1 |
| 2 weeks | 2 |
Figure 1(A) The uniformity index of helical tomotherapy for 10 patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. (B) The conformal index of helical tomotherapy for with locally advanced cervical cancer.
Dose-volume histograms statistics for the organs at risk
| Organ | Helical tomotherapy | Conventional radiotherapy | †Decreasing percentage | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 43.5 ± 18.2 | |||||
| Mean dose | 41.3 ± 5.1 Gy | 50.9 ± 1.9 Gy | 18.9% | < 0.01 | |
| V50.4 | 37.2 ± 30.1% | 80.8 ± 12.4% | 55.6% | < 0.01 | |
| V40 | 68.3 ± 20.9% | 95.2 ± 4.2% | 35.0% | < 0.01 | |
| V30 | 82.2 ± 15.3% | 98.4 ± 2.6% | 16.6% | < 0.01 | |
| 59.8 ± 24.2 | |||||
| Mean dose | 40.5 ± 3.5Gy | 50.2 ± 2.5Gy | 19.3% | < 0.01 | |
| V50.4 | 29.5 ± 14.7% | 74.4 ± 17.6% | 61.3% | < 0.01 | |
| V45 | 49.1 ± 13.7% | 86.0 ± 11.5% | 43.2% | < 0.01 | |
| V40 | 57.9 ± 12.6% | 91.3 ± 8.5% | 36.8% | < 0.01 | |
| V30 | 75.7 ± 12.3% | 100.0 ± 0% | 24.3% | < 0.01 | |
| 1523.3 ± 1389.4 | |||||
| Mean dose | 25.1 ± 2.4Gy | 34.2 ± 4.2Gy | 26.3% | < 0.01 | |
| V50.4 | 0.4 ± 0.4% | 20.0 ± 10.7% | 98.2% | < 0.01 | |
| V40 | 4.9 ± 3.2% | 33.3 ± 13.1% | 84.1% | < 0.01 | |
| V30 | 23.5 ± 11.9% | 59.5 ± 10.4% | 61.1% | < 0.01 | |
| V20 | 69.2 ± 10.9% | 86.6 ± 8.0% | 20.1% | < 0.01 | |
| 114.4 ± 16.2 | |||||
| V30 | 15.5 ± 14.2% | 23.2 ± 29.1% | 19.0% | 0.47 | |
| 114.3 ± 14.0 | |||||
| V30 | 16.1 ± 13.9% | 22.3 ± 28.5% | 12.9% | 0.54 | |
| 187.3 ± 19.4 | |||||
| V10 | 99.9 ± 0.1% | 93.1 ± 4.8% | -6.8% | < 0.01 | |
| V20 | 79.1 ± 4.6% | 86.2 ± 5.6% | 8.2% | < 0.01 | |
| 189.4 ± 20.1 | |||||
| V10 | 99.9 ± 0.1% | 95.5 ± 2.1% | -4.4% | < 0.01 | |
| V20 | 78.3 ± 4.8% | 89.2 ± 3.1% | 12.2% | < 0.01 | |
*S.D.: standard deviation.
† Decreasing percentage: (conventional radiotherapy - helical tomotherapy)/conventional radiotherapy
Figure 2Dose-volume histogram of pelvic bone marrow under the similar PTV and intestine dose for one patient with original whole pelvic helical tomotherapy and giving V10 < 90%, V20 <80% replanning whole pelvic helical tomotherapy for comparisons.