BACKGROUND: To evaluate the dosimetric parameters of different bone marrow sparing strategies and radiotherapy technologies and determine the optimal strategy to reduce hematologic toxicity associated with concurrent chemoradiation (cCRT) for cervical cancer. METHODS: A total of 15 patients with Federation International of Gynecology and Obsterics (FIGO) Stage IIB cervical cancer treated with cCRT were re-planned for bone marrow (BM)-sparing plans. First, we determined the optimal BM sparing strategy for intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), including a BMS-IMRT plan that used total BM sparing (IMRT-BM) as the dose-volume constraint, and another plan used os coxae (OC) and lumbosacral spine (LS) sparing (IMRT-LS+OC) to compare the plan without BM-sparing (IMRT-N). Then, we determined the optimal technology for the BMS-IMRT, including fixed-field IMRT (FF-IMRT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT). The conformity and homogeneity of PTV, exposure volume of OARs, and efficiency of radiation delivery were analyzed. RESULTS: Compared with the IMRT-N group, the average volume of BM that received ≥10, ≥20, ≥30, and ≥40 Gy decreased significantly in both two BM-sparing groups, especially in the IMRT-LS+OC group, meanwhile, two BMS-IMRT plans exhibited the similar effect on PTV coverage and other organs at risk (OARs) sparing. Among three common IMRT techniques in clinic, HT was significantly less effective than VMAT and FF-IMRT in the aspect of BM-Sparing. Additionally, VMAT exhibited more efficient radiation delivery. CONCLUSION: We recommend the use of VMAT with OC and LS as separate dose-volume constraints in cervical cancer patients aiming at reducing hematologic toxicity associated with cCRT, especially in developing countries.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the dosimetric parameters of different bone marrow sparing strategies and radiotherapy technologies and determine the optimal strategy to reduce hematologic toxicity associated with concurrent chemoradiation (cCRT) for cervical cancer. METHODS: A total of 15 patients with Federation International of Gynecology and Obsterics (FIGO) Stage IIB cervical cancer treated with cCRT were re-planned for bone marrow (BM)-sparing plans. First, we determined the optimal BM sparing strategy for intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), including a BMS-IMRT plan that used total BM sparing (IMRT-BM) as the dose-volume constraint, and another plan used os coxae (OC) and lumbosacral spine (LS) sparing (IMRT-LS+OC) to compare the plan without BM-sparing (IMRT-N). Then, we determined the optimal technology for the BMS-IMRT, including fixed-field IMRT (FF-IMRT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT). The conformity and homogeneity of PTV, exposure volume of OARs, and efficiency of radiation delivery were analyzed. RESULTS: Compared with the IMRT-N group, the average volume of BM that received ≥10, ≥20, ≥30, and ≥40 Gy decreased significantly in both two BM-sparing groups, especially in the IMRT-LS+OC group, meanwhile, two BMS-IMRT plans exhibited the similar effect on PTV coverage and other organs at risk (OARs) sparing. Among three common IMRT techniques in clinic, HT was significantly less effective than VMAT and FF-IMRT in the aspect of BM-Sparing. Additionally, VMAT exhibited more efficient radiation delivery. CONCLUSION: We recommend the use of VMAT with OC and LS as separate dose-volume constraints in cervical cancer patients aiming at reducing hematologic toxicity associated with cCRT, especially in developing countries.
Authors: Kevin Albuquerque; David Giangreco; Courtney Morrison; Mohammed Siddiqui; Jim Sinacore; Ronald Potkul; John Roeske Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-05-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Xu Cao; Xiangwei Wu; Deborah Frassica; Bing Yu; Lijuan Pang; Lingling Xian; Mei Wan; Weiqi Lei; Michael Armour; Erik Tryggestad; John Wong; Chun Yi Wen; William Weijia Lu; Frank J Frassica Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Alfonso Dueñas-González; Juan J Zarbá; Firuza Patel; Juan C Alcedo; Semir Beslija; Luis Casanova; Pittayapoom Pattaranutaporn; Shahid Hameed; Julie M Blair; Helen Barraclough; Mauro Orlando Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P G Rose; B N Bundy; E B Watkins; J T Thigpen; G Deppe; M A Maiman; D L Clarke-Pearson; S Insalaco Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-04-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: P Mauch; L Constine; J Greenberger; W Knospe; J Sullivan; J L Liesveld; H J Deeg Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1995-03-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Brent S Rose; Bulent Aydogan; Yun Liang; Mete Yeginer; Michael D Hasselle; Virag Dandekar; Rounak Bafana; Catheryn M Yashar; Arno J Mundt; John C Roeske; Loren K Mell Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-04-17 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Loren K Mell; Igor Sirák; Lichun Wei; Rafal Tarnawski; Umesh Mahantshetty; Catheryn M Yashar; Michael T McHale; Ronghui Xu; Gordon Honerkamp-Smith; Ruben Carmona; Mary Wright; Casey W Williamson; Linda Kasaová; Nan Li; Stephen Kry; Jeff Michalski; Walter Bosch; William Straube; Julie Schwarz; Jessica Lowenstein; Steve B Jiang; Cheryl C Saenz; Steve Plaxe; John Einck; Chonlakiet Khorprasert; Paul Koonings; Terry Harrison; Mei Shi; A J Mundt Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Xiangdi Meng; Nan Wang; Meng Yu; Dechen Kong; Zhengtao Zhang; Xiaolong Chang; Yinghua Guo; Yang Li Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-09-09