| Literature DB >> 32395135 |
Zuzana Vlachová1,2, Martin Dolezel1,2,3, Katerina Svozilova1, Paulina Jaskova1, Denisa Vitaskova1, Marcel Matzenauer4, Jan Stuk5, Igor Hartmann2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of 3D brachytherapy planning time on the real dose distribution.Entities:
Keywords: 3D brachytherapy; cervical cancer; treatment planning
Year: 2020 PMID: 32395135 PMCID: PMC7207232 DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2020.94580
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy ISSN: 2081-2841
The difference of dose (ΔD) between confirmation CT and planning CT for each dose parameter (D0.1cc, D1cc, D2cc) for organs at risk
| Patient | ΔD0.1cc sigmoid | ΔD1cc sigmoid | ΔD2cc sigmoid | ΔD0.1cc rectum | ΔD1cc rectum | ΔD2cc rectum | ΔD0.1cc bladder | ΔD1cc bladder | ΔD2cc bladder |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1a | 165.97 | 127.11 | 102.57 | –73.27 | –83.58 | –74.46 | 19.16 | 38.59 | 33.83 |
| 1b | –149.19 | –98.61 | –89.37 | 54.28 | 14.23 | 12.62 | –37.79 | –29.75 | –25.87 |
| 2a | –71.12 | –61.38 | –56.5 | 3.6 | 31.99 | 36.27 | –88.04 | –29.04 | –11.41 |
| 2b | –74.13 | –64.75 | –73.57 | 84.81 | 62.25 | 57.73 | 275.8 | 616.38 | 518.09 |
| 3a | –57.05 | 9.77 | 31.83 | 150.05 | 92.91 | 70.73 | –169.13 | 16.1 | 41.75 |
| 3b | 116.85 | 132.58 | 142.8 | –312.58 | –280.04 | –255.26 | 144.76 | 126.29 | 111.35 |
| 4a | 181.24 | 81.89 | 59.7 | –64.49 | –62.01 | –55.65 | 361.37 | 198.37 | 144.82 |
| 4b | 89.74 | 80.04 | 88.85 | 5.51 | –2.4 | –9.58 | –474.66 | –230.23 | –153.19 |
| 5a | 67.39 | 46.07 | 37.71 | –44.42 | –25.23 | –17.13 | –32.05 | –68.75 | –74.18 |
| 5b | –31.97 | –37.23 | –33.55 | –68.89 | –43.17 | –31.32 | 382.05 | 144.32 | 85.38 |
| 6a | 15.69 | –59.55 | –71.37 | –15.57 | –4.67 | –5.65 | 19.72 | 15.53 | 25.2 |
| 6b | 66.22 | 10.82 | 7.45 | 16.8 | 16.59 | 21.54 | 217.21 | 111.44 | 80.88 |
| 7a | 138.85 | 101.78 | –8.93 | –15.51 | –9.52 | 47.55 | 33.4 | 34.87 | 47.55 |
| 7b | –81.74 | –1.45 | –8.69 | –338.83 | –327.05 | –305.16 | 139.46 | 119.07 | 111.38 |
| 8a | –33.34 | –128.95 | –134.32 | 137.69 | 76.65 | 61.61 | 111.61 | 90.65 | 78.69 |
| 8b | –287.86 | 65.35 | 29.4 | 38.55 | 35.71 | –8.63 | –12.51 | –15.83 | –8.63 |
| 9a | 376.44 | 212.42 | 158.52 | –8.86 | 2.14 | –1.72 | 702.03 | 288.59 | 193.85 |
| 9b | 30.54 | 10.52 | –10.87 | –5.38 | –4.67 | –4.01 | 60 | 71.75 | 32.76 |
| 10a | 88.76 | 94.5 | 70.43 | –113.8 | –98.76 | –66.7 | –5.89 | 46.67 | 21.63 |
| 10b | 25.72 | 12.81 | 12.63 | 110.65 | 105.6 | 75.7 | 125.86 | 155.83 | 115.87 |
| Median | 25.72 | 11.82 | 10.0 | –7.12 | –3.53 | –4.83 | 46.7 | 59.21 | 44.65 |
Fig. 1A) Time vs. change of dose for D0.1cc bladder; B) Time vs. change of dose for D1cc bladder; C) Time vs. change of dose for D2cc bladder
Fig. 2A) Time vs. change of dose for D0.1cc rectum; B) Time vs. change of dose for D1cc rectum; C) Time vs. change of dose for D2cc rectum
Fig. 3A) Time vs. change of dose for D0.1cc sigmoid; B) Time vs. change of dose for D1cc sigmoid; C) Time vs. change of dose for D2cc sigmoid