Literature DB >> 22925598

Planning target volume margin evaluation and critical structure sparing for rectal cancer patients treated prone on a bellyboard.

Gavin Cranmer-Sargison1, Vijayananda Kundapur, Eileen Park-Somers, Joe Andreas, Haresh Vachhrajani, Narinder P Sidhu.   

Abstract

AIMS: To calculate a planning target volume (PTV) margin that would account for inter-fractional systematic and random clinical target volume positional errors for patients treated prone on a recently available couch top bellyboard and to evaluate potential critical structure dose reduction using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients (12 men and 12 women) were included in this study, all treated on a commercial bellyboard. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data were acquired once every five fractions for a total of five images per patient. A three-dimensional-three-dimensional bony anatomy auto-match was carried out off-line and the residual difference in position used as a surrogate for clinical target volume inter-fractional positional errors. Systematic (Σ) and random (σ) variations were evaluated and used in PTV(margin)=1.96Σ+0.7σ. The influence of intra-fractional positional errors was evaluated in the margin analysis by introducing published values. Critical structure sparing, as a function of PTV(margin) size, was investigated through the evaluation of three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) and IMRT treatment plans developed using the margin derived from this work, the American Society for Radiation Oncology Contouring Atlas and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0822 trial specifications.
RESULTS: The PTV(margin) that accounts for only the inter-fractional positional errors was calculated to be (anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI), left-right (LR))=(5.2mm, 3.1mm, 2.8mm). If we assumed a combined intra-fractional motion up to 3.0mm then the required PTV(margin) increased to (AP, SI, LR)=(7.0mm, 5.0mm, 5.0mm). Treatment plan evaluation showed that the bellyboard provides excellent small bowel sparing regardless of planning technique. In most cases, IMRT reduced the average femoral head, bladder and small bowel dose by 20, 15 and 40% with respect to 3DCRT planning.
CONCLUSION: A PTV(margin) expansion of (AP, SI, LR)=(7.0mm, 5.0mm, 5.0mm) is required to account for all positional uncertainties. The use of a bellyboard with IMRT provides better critical structure sparing when compared with a bellyboard with 3DCRT.
Copyright © 2012 The Royal College of Radiologists. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22925598     DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2012.08.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)        ISSN: 0936-6555            Impact factor:   4.126


  7 in total

1.  A treatment planning study of prone vs. supine positions for locally advanced rectal carcinoma : Comparison of 3‑dimensional conformal radiotherapy, tomotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Authors:  Sergiu Scobioala; Christopher Kittel; Philipp Niermann; Heidi Wolters; Katharina Helene Susek; Uwe Haverkamp; Hans Theodor Eich
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 3.621

2.  Small bowel protection in IMRT for rectal cancer : A dosimetric study on supine vs. prone position.

Authors:  Julia Koeck; Katharina Kromer; Frank Lohr; Tobias Baack; Kerstin Siebenlist; Sabine Mai; Sylvia Büttner; Jens Fleckenstein; Frederik Wenz
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 3.621

3.  Mesorectal shape variation in rectal cancer radiotherapy in prone position using a belly board.

Authors:  Maurice C Cox; Pètra M Braam; Heidi Rütten; Ruud van Leeuwen; Markus Wendling
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2021-08-22

4.  Dose-volume histogram predictors of chronic gastrointestinal complications after radical hysterectomy and postoperative intensity modulated radiotherapy for early-stage cervical cancer.

Authors:  Zhongjie Chen; Li Zhu; Bailin Zhang; Maobin Meng; Zhiyong Yuan; Ping Wang
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 4.430

5.  Impact of prone versus supine positioning on small bowel dose with pelvic intensity modulated radiation therapy.

Authors:  Victor J Gonzalez; Craig R Hullett; Lindsay Burt; Prema Rassiah-Szegedi; Vikren Sarkar; Jonathan D Tward; Lisa J Hazard; Y Jessica Huang; Bill J Salter; David K Gaffney
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2017-01-24

6.  Dosimetric comparison of organs at risk in 5 different radiotherapy plans in patients with preoperatively irradiated rectal cancer.

Authors:  Bekir Hakan Bakkal; Ozlem Elmas
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 1.817

7.  A phase II trial of preoperative concurrent chemotherapy and dose escalated intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer.

Authors:  Jeremy Tey; Cheng Nang Leong; Wai Kit Cheong; Tay Guan Sze; Wei Peng Yong; Ivan Weng Keong Tham; Khai Mun Lee
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2017-09-06       Impact factor: 4.207

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.