PURPOSE: Concurrent radiochemotherapy is the standard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer. This treatment is responsible for bowel and hematologic toxicities. The use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), in static beams, allows a decrease of this toxicity. The technique of RapidArc(®) IMRT could lower the dose delivered to the organs at risk and improve the homogeneity of the planning target volume coverage, while decreasing the processing time. PATIENTS AND MATERIALS: For 20 patients, treatment plans performed with IMRT and RapidArc(®) were compared. The target volumes were: the clinical target volume (gross tumour volume, uterus, upper third of the vagina, the hypogastric, iliac and presacral nodal regions), and the planning target volume (clinical target volume+1cm). The delineated organs at risk were: rectum, bladder, bowel and bone marrow. The dose was 45 Gy in 25 fractions. IMRT were delivered with five beams and RapidArc(®) with two arcs. The comparisons were made by the non-parametric test of Wilcoxon. RESULTS: Medium coverage of the planning target volume was better with RapidArc(®) (P=0.01). It was also better regarding the sparing of bowel (P=0.01) and IMRT was better regarding the sparing of bladder (P=0.01) and rectum (P=0.05). The total volume receiving 20 Gy was less important with RapidArc(®) (P<0.001). RapidArc(®) allowed to decrease the treatment time (3 versus 12 minutes with IMRT) and the number of monitor units (MU) (376.5 versus 962.2, on average, P=0.0001). CONCLUSION: The technique of RapidArc(®) seems to obtain better dosimetric results compared to RCMI, with fewer MU, and a significant decrease in treatment time.
PURPOSE: Concurrent radiochemotherapy is the standard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer. This treatment is responsible for bowel and hematologic toxicities. The use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), in static beams, allows a decrease of this toxicity. The technique of RapidArc(®) IMRT could lower the dose delivered to the organs at risk and improve the homogeneity of the planning target volume coverage, while decreasing the processing time. PATIENTS AND MATERIALS: For 20 patients, treatment plans performed with IMRT and RapidArc(®) were compared. The target volumes were: the clinical target volume (gross tumour volume, uterus, upper third of the vagina, the hypogastric, iliac and presacral nodal regions), and the planning target volume (clinical target volume+1cm). The delineated organs at risk were: rectum, bladder, bowel and bone marrow. The dose was 45 Gy in 25 fractions. IMRT were delivered with five beams and RapidArc(®) with two arcs. The comparisons were made by the non-parametric test of Wilcoxon. RESULTS: Medium coverage of the planning target volume was better with RapidArc(®) (P=0.01). It was also better regarding the sparing of bowel (P=0.01) and IMRT was better regarding the sparing of bladder (P=0.01) and rectum (P=0.05). The total volume receiving 20 Gy was less important with RapidArc(®) (P<0.001). RapidArc(®) allowed to decrease the treatment time (3 versus 12 minutes with IMRT) and the number of monitor units (MU) (376.5 versus 962.2, on average, P=0.0001). CONCLUSION: The technique of RapidArc(®) seems to obtain better dosimetric results compared to RCMI, with fewer MU, and a significant decrease in treatment time.
Authors: Hanne Elisabeth Weber; Leif Hendrik Dröge; Steffen Hennies; Markus Karl Herrmann; Jochen Gaedcke; Hendrik Andreas Wolff Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: I Lalya; A Maghous; E Marnouche; N Zaghba; K Andaloussi; M Elmarjany; K Hadadi; H Sifat; H Mansouri Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 2.754
Authors: Peter de Boer; Agustinus J A J van de Schoot; Henrike Westerveld; Mark Smit; Marrije R Buist; Arjan Bel; Coen R N Rasch; Lukas J A Stalpers Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 3.621