Xiao-Nan Sun1, Qi Wang, Ben-Xing Gu, Yan-Hong Zhu, Jian-Bin Hu, Guo-Zhi Shi, Shu Zheng. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology of Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Sir Run Run Shaw Institute of Clinical Medicine of Zhejiang University, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310016, Zhejiang Province, China.
Abstract
AIM: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of conformal radiotherapy (CRT) and compare with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the treatment of gallbladder cancer. METHODS: Between November 2003 and January 2010, 20 patients with gallbladder cancer were treated with CRT with or without chemotherapy after surgical resection. Preliminary survival data were collected and examined using both Kaplan-Meier and actuarial analysis. Demographic and treatment parameters were collected. All patients were planned to receive 46-56 Gy in 1.8 or 2.0 Gy per fraction. CRT planning was compared with IMRT. RESULTS: The most common reported acute toxicities requiring medication (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Grade 2) were nausea (10/20 patients) and diarrhea (3/20). There were no treatment-related deaths. Compared with CRT planning, IMRT significantly reduced the volume of right kidney receiving > 20 Gy and the volume of liver receiving > 30 Gy. IMRT has a negligible impact on the volume of left kidney receiving > 20 Gy. The 95% of prescribed dose for a planning tumor volume using either 3D CRT or IMRT planning were 84.0% ± 6.7%, 82.9% ± 6.1%, respectively (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: IMRT achieves similar excellent target coverage as compared with CRT planning, while reducing the mean liver dose and volume above threshold dose. IMRT offers better sparing of the right kidney compared with CRT planning, with a significantly lower mean dose and volume above threshold dose.
AIM: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of conformal radiotherapy (CRT) and compare with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the treatment of gallbladder cancer. METHODS: Between November 2003 and January 2010, 20 patients with gallbladder cancer were treated with CRT with or without chemotherapy after surgical resection. Preliminary survival data were collected and examined using both Kaplan-Meier and actuarial analysis. Demographic and treatment parameters were collected. All patients were planned to receive 46-56 Gy in 1.8 or 2.0 Gy per fraction. CRT planning was compared with IMRT. RESULTS: The most common reported acute toxicities requiring medication (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Grade 2) were nausea (10/20 patients) and diarrhea (3/20). There were no treatment-related deaths. Compared with CRT planning, IMRT significantly reduced the volume of right kidney receiving > 20 Gy and the volume of liver receiving > 30 Gy. IMRT has a negligible impact on the volume of left kidney receiving > 20 Gy. The 95% of prescribed dose for a planning tumor volume using either 3D CRT or IMRT planning were 84.0% ± 6.7%, 82.9% ± 6.1%, respectively (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: IMRT achieves similar excellent target coverage as compared with CRT planning, while reducing the mean liver dose and volume above threshold dose. IMRT offers better sparing of the right kidney compared with CRT planning, with a significantly lower mean dose and volume above threshold dose.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adjuvant treatment; Gallbladder cancers; Radiation therapy; Surgery
Authors: Hyun Soo Shin; Jinsil Seong; Woo Chul Kim; Hyung Sik Lee; Sun Rock Moon; Ik Jae Lee; Kang Kyu Lee; Kyung Ran Park; Chang Ok Suh; Gwi Eon Kim Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A G Morganti; L Trodella; V Valentini; P Montemaggi; G Costamagna; D Smaniotto; S Luzi; P Ziccarelli; G Macchia; V Perri; M Mutignani; N Cellini Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: John J Kresl; Steven E Schild; George T Henning; Leonard L Gunderson; John Donohue; Henry Pitot; Michael G Haddock; David Nagorney Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: S J Buskirk; L L Gunderson; M A Adson; A Martinez; G R May; D C McIlrath; D M Nagorney; G K Edmundson; C E Bender; J K Martin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1984-11 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Vandana Rajagopalan; William P Daines; Michael L Grossbard; Peter Kozuch Journal: Oncology (Williston Park) Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 2.990
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
Authors: Ahmet Tunceroglu; Joo Han Park; Sairam Balasubramanian; Matthew Poppe; Christopher J Anker; Elizabeth Poplin; Rebecca A Moss; Ning J Yue; Darren Carpizo; Christopher J Gannon; Bruce G Haffty; Salma K Jabbour Journal: ISRN Oncol Date: 2012-10-18