BACKGROUND: To evaluate the safety of focal dose escalation to regions with standardized uptake value (SUV) >2.0 using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) by comparison of radiotherapy plans using dose-volume histograms (DVHs) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer METHODS: First, we performed conventional radiotherapy with 40 Gy/20 fr. (CRT 40 Gy) for 12 patients with postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer, and then we performed FDG-PET/CT radiotherapy planning for those patients. We defined the regions with SUV > 2.0 as biological target volume (BTV) and made three boost plans for each patient: 1) CRT boost plan, 2) IMRT without dose-painting boost plan, and 3) IMRT with dose-painting boost plan. The total boost dose was 20 Gy. In IMRT with dose-painting boost plan, we increased the dose for BTV+5 mm by 30% of the prescribed dose. We added CRT boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 1), IMRT without dose-painting boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 2) and IMRT with dose-painting boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 3), and we compared those plans using DVHs and NTCP. RESULTS: D(mean) of PTV-PET and that of PTV-CT were 26.5 Gy and 21.3 Gy, respectively. V50 of small bowel PRV in summed plan 1 was significantly higher than those in other plans ((summed plan 1 vs. summed plan 2 vs. summed plan 3: 47.11 +/- 45.33 cm3 vs. 40.63 +/- 39.13 cm3 vs. 41.25 +/- 39.96 cm3 (p < 0.01, respectively)). There were no significant differences in V30, V40, V60, D(mean) or NTCP of small bowel PRV. CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET-guided IMRT can facilitate focal dose-escalation to regions with SUV above 2.0 for postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the safety of focal dose escalation to regions with standardized uptake value (SUV) >2.0 using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) by comparison of radiotherapy plans using dose-volume histograms (DVHs) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer METHODS: First, we performed conventional radiotherapy with 40 Gy/20 fr. (CRT 40 Gy) for 12 patients with postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer, and then we performed FDG-PET/CT radiotherapy planning for those patients. We defined the regions with SUV > 2.0 as biological target volume (BTV) and made three boost plans for each patient: 1) CRT boost plan, 2) IMRT without dose-painting boost plan, and 3) IMRT with dose-painting boost plan. The total boost dose was 20 Gy. In IMRT with dose-painting boost plan, we increased the dose for BTV+5 mm by 30% of the prescribed dose. We added CRT boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 1), IMRT without dose-painting boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 2) and IMRT with dose-painting boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 3), and we compared those plans using DVHs and NTCP. RESULTS: D(mean) of PTV-PET and that of PTV-CT were 26.5 Gy and 21.3 Gy, respectively. V50 of small bowel PRV in summed plan 1 was significantly higher than those in other plans ((summed plan 1 vs. summed plan 2 vs. summed plan 3: 47.11 +/- 45.33 cm3 vs. 40.63 +/- 39.13 cm3 vs. 41.25 +/- 39.96 cm3 (p < 0.01, respectively)). There were no significant differences in V30, V40, V60, D(mean) or NTCP of small bowel PRV. CONCLUSIONS:FDG-PET-guided IMRT can facilitate focal dose-escalation to regions with SUV above 2.0 for postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer.
Authors: B Emami; J Lyman; A Brown; L Coia; M Goitein; J E Munzenrider; B Shank; L J Solin; M Wesson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1991-05-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Katherine Mah; Curtis B Caldwell; Yee C Ung; Cyril E Danjoux; Judith M Balogh; S Nimu Ganguli; Lisa E Ehrlich; Romeo Tirona Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yusuf E Erdi; Kenneth Rosenzweig; Alev K Erdi; Homer A Macapinlac; Yu Chi Hu; Louise E Braban; John L Humm; Olivia D Squire; Chen Shou Chui; Steven M Larson; Ellen D Yorke Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Dennis Vriens; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Winette T A van der Graaf; Wim J G Oyen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Johan Bussink; Johannes H A M Kaanders; Winette T A van der Graaf; Wim J G Oyen Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-25 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Nadia Withofs; Claire Bernard; Catherine Van der Rest; Philippe Martinive; Mathieu Hatt; Sebastien Jodogne; Dimitris Visvikis; John A Lee; Philippe A Coucke; Roland Hustinx Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-09-08 Impact factor: 2.102