Literature DB >> 24412028

A study on planning organ at risk volume for the rectum using cone beam computed tomography in the treatment of prostate cancer.

Ramachandran Prabhakar1, Richard Oates2, Daryl Jones2, Tomas Kron3, Jim Cramb4, Farshad Foroudi2, Moshi Geso5, Suki Gill2.   

Abstract

In this study, we analyzed planning organ at risk volume (PRV) for the rectum using a series of cone beam computed tomographies (CBCTs) acquired during the treatment of prostate cancer and evaluated the dosimetric effect of different PRV definitions. Overall, 21 patients with prostate cancer were treated radically with 78Gy in 39 fractions had in total 418 CBCTs, each acquired at the end of the first 5 fractions and then every alternate fraction. The PRV was generated from the Boolean sum volume of the rectum obtained from first 5 fractions (PRV-CBCT-5) and from all CBCTs (PRV-CBCT-All). The PRV margin was compared at the superior, middle, and inferior slices of the contoured rectum to compare PRV-CBCT-5 and PRV-CBCT-All. We also compared the dose received by the planned rectum (Rectum-computed tomography [CT]), PRV-CBCT-5, PRV-CBCT-All, and average rectum (CBCT-AV-dose-volume histogram [DVH]) at critical dose levels. The average measured rectal volume for all 21 patients for Rectum-CT, PRV-CBCT-5, and PRV-CBCT-All was 44.3 ± 15.0, 92.8 ± 40.40, and 121.5 ± 36.7cm(3), respectively. For PRV-CBCT-All, the mean ± standard deviation displacement in the anterior, posterior, right, and left lateral directions in centimeters was 2.1 ± 1.1, 0.9 ± 0.5, 0.9 ± 0.8, and 1.1 ± 0.7 for the superior rectum; 0.8 ± 0.5, 1.1 ± 0.5, 1.0 ± 0.5, and 1.0 ± 0.5 for the middle rectum; and 0.3 ± 0.3; 0.9 ± 0.5; 0.4 ± 0.2, and 0.5 ± 0.3 for the inferior rectum, respectively. The first 5 CBCTs did not predict the PRV for individual patients. Our study shows that the PRV margin is different for superior, middle, and the inferior parts of the rectum, it is wider superiorly and narrower inferiorly. A uniform PRV margin does not represent the actual rectal variations during treatment for all treatment fractions. The large variation in interpatient rectal size implies a potential role for adaptive radiotherapy for prostate cancer.
© 2013 Published by American Association of Medical Dosimetrists on behalf of American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cone beam-CT; Planning organs at risk volume; Prostate cancer; Rectum

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24412028     DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2013.09.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Dosim        ISSN: 1873-4022            Impact factor:   1.482


  2 in total

1.  Interfraction Anatomical Variability Can Lead to Significantly Increased Rectal Dose for Patients Undergoing Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Michael Wahl; Martina Descovich; Erin Shugard; Dilini Pinnaduwage; Atchar Sudhyadhom; Albert Chang; Mack Roach; Alexander Gottschalk; Josephine Chen
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-07-08

2.  What benefit could be derived from on-line adaptive prostate radiotherapy using rectal diameter as a predictor of motion?

Authors:  Richard Oates; Suki Gill; Farshad Foroudi; Michael Lim Joon; Michal Schneider; Mathias Bressel; Tomas Kron
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.