PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of gas removal on bladder and rectal doses during intracavitary and interstitial high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRB) for gynecologic cancers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifteen patients treated with definitive external beam radiation followed by HDRB for gynecologic cancers for a total of 21 fractions, presented with a significant amount of rectal gas at initial CT imaging (CTGAS ) after implantation. The gas was removed via rectal tubing followed by subsequent scan acquisition (CTCLINICAL ), which was used for planning and treatment delivery. To assess the effect of gas removal on dosimetry, both bladder and rectum volumes were recontoured on CTGAS . In order to evaluate the clinical impact on the total Equivalent-Dose-in-2Gy-fraction (EQD2 ), each fraction was also replanned to maintain clinically delivered target coverage (HRCTV D90). EQD2 D2cm3 for bladder and rectum were compared between plans. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed to evaluate statistically significant differences for all comparisons (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Mean rectum and bladder Dmax , D0.1cm3 , D1cm3 , D2cm3 , and D5cm3 were significantly different between CTGAS and CTCLINICAL . The mean percent increases on CTGAS for bladder were 12.3, 8.4, 9.9, 10.2, and 9.5% respectively and for rectum were 27.0, 19.6, 18.1, 18.5, and 19.4%, respectively. After replanning with CTGAS to maintain HRCTV D90 EQD2 , bladder and rectum EQD2 D2 cm3 resulted in significantly higher doses. The mean EQD2 D2 cm3 difference was 2.4 and 4.1 Gy for bladder and rectum, revealing a higher impact of gas removal on rectal DVH. CONCLUSION: Rectal gas removal resulted in statistically significant differences for both bladder and rectum. The resulting larger EQD2 D2 cm3 for bladder and rectum demonstrates that if patients were treated without removing gas, target coverage would need to be sacrificed to satisfy the rectum constraints and prevent toxicities. Therefore, this study demonstrates the importance of gas removal for gynecologic HDRB patients.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of gas removal on bladder and rectal doses during intracavitary and interstitial high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRB) for gynecologic cancers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifteen patients treated with definitive external beam radiation followed by HDRB for gynecologic cancers for a total of 21 fractions, presented with a significant amount of rectal gas at initial CT imaging (CTGAS ) after implantation. The gas was removed via rectal tubing followed by subsequent scan acquisition (CTCLINICAL ), which was used for planning and treatment delivery. To assess the effect of gas removal on dosimetry, both bladder and rectum volumes were recontoured on CTGAS . In order to evaluate the clinical impact on the total Equivalent-Dose-in-2Gy-fraction (EQD2 ), each fraction was also replanned to maintain clinically delivered target coverage (HRCTV D90). EQD2 D2cm3 for bladder and rectum were compared between plans. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed to evaluate statistically significant differences for all comparisons (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Mean rectum and bladder Dmax , D0.1cm3 , D1cm3 , D2cm3 , and D5cm3 were significantly different between CTGAS and CTCLINICAL . The mean percent increases on CTGAS for bladder were 12.3, 8.4, 9.9, 10.2, and 9.5% respectively and for rectum were 27.0, 19.6, 18.1, 18.5, and 19.4%, respectively. After replanning with CTGAS to maintain HRCTV D90 EQD2 , bladder and rectum EQD2 D2 cm3 resulted in significantly higher doses. The mean EQD2 D2 cm3 difference was 2.4 and 4.1 Gy for bladder and rectum, revealing a higher impact of gas removal on rectal DVH. CONCLUSION: Rectal gas removal resulted in statistically significant differences for both bladder and rectum. The resulting larger EQD2 D2 cm3 for bladder and rectum demonstrates that if patients were treated without removing gas, target coverage would need to be sacrificed to satisfy the rectum constraints and prevent toxicities. Therefore, this study demonstrates the importance of gas removal for gynecologic HDRB patients.
Authors: S Sabater; Ma M Sevillano; I Andres; R Berenguer; S Machin-Hamalainen; K Müller; M Arenas Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Richard Pötter; Christine Haie-Meder; Erik Van Limbergen; Isabelle Barillot; Marisol De Brabandere; Johannes Dimopoulos; Isabelle Dumas; Beth Erickson; Stefan Lang; An Nulens; Peter Petrow; Jason Rownd; Christian Kirisits Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2006-01-05 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Christine Haie-Meder; Richard Pötter; Erik Van Limbergen; Edith Briot; Marisol De Brabandere; Johannes Dimopoulos; Isabelle Dumas; Taran Paulsen Hellebust; Christian Kirisits; Stefan Lang; Sabine Muschitz; Juliana Nevinson; An Nulens; Peter Petrow; Natascha Wachter-Gerstner Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Alexandra J Stewart; Robert A Cormack; Hang Lee; Li Xiong; Jorgen L Hansen; Desmond A O'Farrell; Akila N Viswanathan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 7.038