| Literature DB >> 23104899 |
Sang Gyu Ju1, Seung Jae Huh, Jung Suk Shin, Won Park, Heerim Nam, Sunhyun Bae, Dongryul Oh, Chae-Seon Hong, Jin Sung Kim, Youngyih Han, Doo Ho Choi.
Abstract
This study sought to evaluate the differential effects of bladder distention on point A-based (AICBT) and three-dimensional conformal intracavitary brachytherapy (3D-ICBT) planning for cervical cancer. Two sets of CT scans were obtained for ten patients to evaluate the effect of bladder distention. After the first CT scan, with an empty bladder, a second set of CT scans was obtained with the bladder filled. The clinical target volume (CTV), bladder, rectum, and small bowel were delineated on each image set. The AICBT and 3D-ICBT plans were generated, and we compared the different planning techniques with respect to the dose characteristics of CTV and organs at risk. As a result of bladder distention, the mean dose (D50) was decreased significantly and geometrical variations were observed in the bladder and small bowel, with acceptable minor changes in the CTV and rectum. The average D2 cm(3)and D1 cm(3)showed a significant change in the bladder and small bowel with AICBT; however, no change was detected with the 3D-ICBT planning. No significant dose change in the CTV or rectum was observed with either the AICBT or the 3D-ICBT plan. The effect of bladder distention on dosimetrical change in 3D-ICBT planning appears to be minimal, in comparison with AICBT planning.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23104899 PMCID: PMC3589929 DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrs091
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Radiat Res ISSN: 0449-3060 Impact factor: 2.724
Patient characteristics
| Characteristics | Number of patients |
|---|---|
| Age | Median 55 years (range, 44 to 78 years) |
| Tumor size | Median 5.2 cm (range, 4 to 6 cm) |
| FIGO stage | |
| IIB | 9 |
| IIIB | 1 |
| Pelvic lymph node | |
| positive | 9 |
| negative | 1 |
| Paraaortic lymph node | |
| positive | 3 |
| negative | 7 |
FIGO = the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Fig. 1.Two sets of CT images for a patient [with (aand c) and without (band d) bladder distention] were registered based on the applicator position, and reconstructed in the sagittal (aand b) and coronal (cand d) plan. Figures show a significant geometrical change of the bladder and small bowel as the result of bladder distention, while clinically acceptable minor changes were detected in the CTV and rectum. The distended bladder pushed the small bowel upward (aand c).
Fig. 2.Pictures showing an example of the difference in dose distribution between AICBT (a)and 3D-ICBT (b). The AICBT plan, which has a uniform pear-shaped dose pattern based on point A, produces a relatively large high-dose volume compared with the 3D-ICBT plan. The 3D-ICBT plan showed better dose conformity by dose optimization to the target volume.
Differences (EB–FB) in position of center of mass and volume for CTV and OARs due to bladder distention
| CTV | Rectum | Bladder | Bowel | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Position differences of center of mass (cm) | Volume difference (cm3) | Position differences of center of mass (cm) | Volume difference (cm3) | Position differences of center of mass (cm) | Volume difference (cm3) | Position differences of center of mass (cm) | Volume difference (cm3) | |||||||||
| X | Y | Z | X | Y | Z | X | Y | Z | X | Y | Z | |||||
| –0.01 | 0.00 | –0.04 | 0.65 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | –3.7 | 0.06 | –2.39 | 1.09 | –367.3 | –0.08 | –0.94 | 0.34 | 92.5 | |
| –0.02 to 0.03 | –0.03 to 0.06 | –0.19 to 0.04 | –0.53 to 1.90 | –0.16 to 0.45 | –0.22 to 0.27 | –0.07 to 0.38 | –15.3 to 15.2 | –0.84 to 1.13 | –3.72 to –1.46 | 0.60 to 4.33 | –597.6 to –215.8 | –0.43 to 0.90 | 2.81 to –0.14 | –3.58 to 1.59 | –16.2 to 132.5 | |
| 0.209 | 0.182 | 0.021 | 0.026 | 0.450 | 0.505 | 0.044 | 0.412 | 0.915 | <0.001 | 0.002 | <0.001 | 0.810 | 0.003 | 0.805 | <0.001 | |
X = lateral, Y = longitudinal, Z = vertical, EB = empty bladder, FB = full bladder.
Different dose effects of the bladder distention for AICBT and 3D-ICBT planning (Gy)
| CTV | Rectum | Bladder | Small bowel | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D90 | D100 | D50% | D2 cm3 | D1 cm3 | D50% | D2 cm3 | D1 cm3 | D50% | D2 cm3 | D1 cm3 | ||
| 5.27 ± 0.71 | 3.49 ± 0.82 | 1.42 ± 0.36 | 3.72 ± 0.69 | 4.05 ± 0.79 | 1.61 ± 0.34 | 4.38 ± 0.80 | 4.62 ± 0.82 | 1.02 ± 0.24 | 4.32 ± 1.16 | 4.69 ± 1.22 | ||
| 4.89 ± 1.11 | 3.23 ± 0.97 | 1.46 ± 0.38 | 3.76 ± 0.80 | 4.08 ± 0.85 | 1.01 ± 0.22 | 5.31 ± 1.09 | 5.55 ± 1.10 | 0.70 ± 0.31 | 3.23 ± 0.91 | 3.75 ± 1.02 | ||
| 0.314 | 0.594 | 0.154 | 0.203 | 0.241 | 0.005 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.005 | ||
| 4.66 ± 0.51 | 2.91 ± 0.51 | 0.99 ± 0.33 | 3.23 ± 1.12 | 3.48 ± 1.26 | 0.96 ± 0.25 | 3.12 ± 0.85 | 3.43 ± 0.91 | 0.55 ± 0.12 | 2.74 ± 0.86 | 3.20 ± 1.10 | ||
| 4.61 ± 0.47 | 2.89 ± 0.56 | 1.00 ± 0.34 | 3.30 ± 1.24 | 3.60 ± 1.31 | 0.59 ± 0.13 | 3.18 ± 1.13 | 3.48 ± 1.09 | 0.40 ± 0.16 | 2.33 ± 0.90 | 2.74 ± 1.16 | ||
| 0.445 | 0.635 | 0.553 | 0.515 | 0.475 | 0.005 | 0.878 | 0.859 | 0.005 | 0.074 | 0.093 | ||
AICBT = point A-based intracavitary brachytherapy, 3D-ICBT = 3D conformal intracavitary brachytherapy, EB = empty bladder, FB = full bladder.
Fig. 3.Comparison of the dose volume histograms for bladder, rectum and bowel, and the CTV of a patient between the AICBT (a)and the 3D-ICBT (b)plan.