OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the dosimetry, efficacy and toxicity of reduced field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (RF-IMRT) for patients with advanced cervical cancer. METHODS: From August 2005 to August 2010, 60 patients with stage IIB-IIIB cervical cancer underwent reduced field IMRT (RF-IMRT group) and 62 patients treated with conventional radiotherapy (c-RT group) were enrolled. The RF-IMRT plans were as follows: whole pelvic IMRT plan was performed to deliver a dose of 30Gy firstly, then the irradiated volume was reduced to lymphatic drainage region as well as paracervix and parametrium for an additional 30Gy boost. Intracavitary brachytherapy and concurrent chemotherapy were performed during external irradiation. The tumor coverage and normal tissue avoidance were evaluated. Treatment response, toxicities and survival were assessed. RESULTS: The mean dose delivered to the planning target volume was significantly higher in RF-IMRT group than in c-RT group (61.5 vs. 50.8Gy, P=0.046). IMRT plans yielded better dose conformity to the target and better sparing of the rectal, bladder and small intestine. The RF-IMRT patients experienced significantly lower acute and chronic toxicities with comparable short-term effects than did those treated with conventional RT (CR: 87.7% vs. 88.3%, P=0.496; PR: 7.0% vs. 6.7%, P=0.440). No significant differences were found between treatment groups for 1year, 3year, and 5year overall survival (OS) levels, although the latter approached statistical significance in favor of IMRT, while a significantly higher progression-free survival (PFS; P=0.031) was seen for IMRT. CONCLUSIONS: RF-IMRT yields improved dose distributions, with lower toxicities, while providing comparable clinical outcomes. The increased PFS may be an advantage. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the dosimetry, efficacy and toxicity of reduced field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (RF-IMRT) for patients with advanced cervical cancer. METHODS: From August 2005 to August 2010, 60 patients with stage IIB-IIIB cervical cancer underwent reduced field IMRT (RF-IMRT group) and 62 patients treated with conventional radiotherapy (c-RT group) were enrolled. The RF-IMRT plans were as follows: whole pelvic IMRT plan was performed to deliver a dose of 30Gy firstly, then the irradiated volume was reduced to lymphatic drainage region as well as paracervix and parametrium for an additional 30Gy boost. Intracavitary brachytherapy and concurrent chemotherapy were performed during external irradiation. The tumor coverage and normal tissue avoidance were evaluated. Treatment response, toxicities and survival were assessed. RESULTS: The mean dose delivered to the planning target volume was significantly higher in RF-IMRT group than in c-RT group (61.5 vs. 50.8Gy, P=0.046). IMRT plans yielded better dose conformity to the target and better sparing of the rectal, bladder and small intestine. The RF-IMRTpatients experienced significantly lower acute and chronic toxicities with comparable short-term effects than did those treated with conventional RT (CR: 87.7% vs. 88.3%, P=0.496; PR: 7.0% vs. 6.7%, P=0.440). No significant differences were found between treatment groups for 1year, 3year, and 5year overall survival (OS) levels, although the latter approached statistical significance in favor of IMRT, while a significantly higher progression-free survival (PFS; P=0.031) was seen for IMRT. CONCLUSIONS:RF-IMRT yields improved dose distributions, with lower toxicities, while providing comparable clinical outcomes. The increased PFS may be an advantage. Copyright Â
Authors: Nicolae Bacalbasa; Ioana Halmaciu; Dragos Cretoiu; Cristian Balalau; Camelia Diaconu; Laura Iliescu; Gabriel Gorecki; Ciprian Bolca; Adrian Neacsu; Irina Balescu Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Matthias W Beckmann; Frederik A Stuebs; Dirk Vordermark; Martin Christoph Koch; Lars-Christian Horn; Tanja Fehm Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 8.251
Authors: Yvette Seppenwoolde; Katarina Majercakova; Martin Buschmann; Elke Dörr; Alina E Sturdza; Maximilian P Schmid; Richard Pötter; Dietmar Georg Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Junzo Chino; Christina M Annunziata; Sushil Beriwal; Lisa Bradfield; Beth A Erickson; Emma C Fields; KathrynJane Fitch; Matthew M Harkenrider; Christine H Holschneider; Mitchell Kamrava; Eric Leung; Lilie L Lin; Jyoti S Mayadev; Marc Morcos; Chika Nwachukwu; Daniel Petereit; Akila N Viswanathan Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-05-18
Authors: Mina Yu; Hong Seok Jang; Dong Min Jeon; Geum Seong Cheon; Hyo Chun Lee; Mi Joo Chung; Sung Hwan Kim; Jong Hoon Lee Journal: Radiat Oncol J Date: 2013-12-31
Authors: Yanlan Chai; Tao Wang; Juan Wang; Yunyi Yang; Ying Gao; Jiyong Gao; Shangfeng Gao; Yueling Wang; Xi Zhou; Zi Liu Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 4.430