| Literature DB >> 33616168 |
Hao Wang1, Ran Peng1, Xuemin Li1, Yuxia Wang1, Yuliang Jiang1, Zhe Ji1, Fuxin Guo1, Suqing Tian1, Haitao Sun1, Jinghong Fan1, Junjie Wang1.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and accuracy of computed tomography (CT)-guided 125I seed implantation assisted by a three-dimensional printing non-coplanar template (3D-PNCT) for treating pelvic locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) patients. A total of 13 patients with 18 masses received 125I seed implantation. The dosimetric parameters of pre-implantation and post-implantation were calculated to evaluate the quality of 125I seed implantation. Doses delivered to the organs at risk (OAR) were also calculated. Differences between pre-implantation and post-implantation were compared by the paired t-test. The mean number of 125I seeds pre-implantation and post-implantation was 67.1 and 68.8, respectively. The mean values of D90 (dose that was delivered to 90% of the target volume), D100 (dose that was delivered to 100% of the target volume), V100 (the target volume receiving 100% of the prescription dose) and V150 (the target volume receiving 150% of the prescription dose) pre-implantation and post-implantation were 136.6 and 135.2 Gy, 63.5 and 71.0 Gy, 90.3% and 90.3% and 62.1% and 62.2%, respectively. Dosimetric outcomes were evaluated quantitatively using the dose volume indices, i.e. coverage index (CI), external volume index (EI) and relative dose homogeneity index (HI). The mean values of those indices pre-implantation and post-implantation were 0.62 and 0.61, 0.31 and 0.33, and 0.31 and 0.31, respectively. The mean doses delivered to OAR pre-implantation and post-implantation for the bladder (D2cc) and bowel (D2cc) were 33.4 and 34.4 Gy, and 58.6 and 61.8 Gy, respectively. The parameters mentioned above fitted well, and no significant difference was found among them. It is concluded that CT-guided 125I seed implantation assisted by 3D-PNCT could be a safe and accurate salvage modality for treating LRRC patients; the ideal pre-prescription dose could be achieved. Also, addition of 3D-PNCT could minimize radiation damage to the surrounding normal tissues.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990 125I seed implantation; 3D printing non-coplanar template; CT guidance; dosimetric evaluation; pelvic locally recurrent rectal cancer; stereotactic ablation brachytherapy
Year: 2021 PMID: 33616168 PMCID: PMC8127672 DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rraa144
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Radiat Res ISSN: 0449-3060 Impact factor: 2.724
Patients’ demographic characteristics
| Characteristic | No. of patients (%) |
|---|---|
| Age, years: median (range) | 56 (48–64) |
| Sex | |
| Male | 7 (53.8%) |
| Female | 6 (46.2%) |
| Stage | |
| I | 1 (7.7%) |
| II | 2 (15.4%) |
| III | 6 (46.2%) |
| IV | 4 (30.8%) |
| Pathology | |
| Adenocarcinoma | 13 (100%) |
| Surgery | |
| Yes | 12 (92.3%) |
| No | 1 (7.7%) |
| Chemotherapy | |
| Yes | 11 (84.6%) |
| No | 2 (15.4%) |
| EBRT | |
| Yes | 13 (100%) |
| No | 0 |
| Previous EBRT frequency | |
| Once | 6 (46.1%) |
| Twice | 5 (38.5%) |
| Three times | 2 (15.4%) |
| Total dose of previous EBRT, Gy: median (range) | 56 (48–134) |
| Recurrent sites (18 masses) | |
| Central | 3 (16.7%) |
| Pre-sacral | 7 (38.9%) |
| Lateral | 8 (44.4%) |
Fig. 1.DVH and dose distribution in pre-implantation, intra-implantation and post-implantation.
Fig. 2.Models of 3D printing non-coplanar template.
Fig. 3.Workflow of 125I seed implantation.
Fig. 4.Needle pathway designed for the presacral recurrence.
Comparing dosimetric and volumetric parameters (D90, D100, V100 and V150) between pre-implantation and post-implantation in 18 lesions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 154.6 | 152.4 | 75.7 | 104.0 | 90.0 | 90.0 | 58.9 | 52.4 | 27.5 | 27.1 |
| 2 | 119.5 | 116.3 | 31.0 | 41.6 | 90.0 | 90.0 | 67.3 | 65.6 | 40.9 | 40.6 |
| 3 | 153.4 | 151.0 | 88.0 | 95.9 | 90.0 | 90.0 | 64.5 | 59.1 | 37.8 | 35.7 |
| 4 | 153.6 | 150.9 | 44.6 | 89.3 | 90.0 | 90.0 | 62.0 | 59.8 | 39.3 | 37.5 |
| 5 | 121.9 | 101.1 | 54.4 | 53.0 | 90.0 | 90.0 | 57.0 | 63.5 | 24.4 | 33.5 |
| 6 | 136.6 | 130.2 | 51.5 | 32.8 | 90.2 | 88.9 | 63.2 | 63.9 | 34.6 | 37.6 |
| 7 | 113.0 | 106.5 | 44.5 | 41.4 | 90.0 | 90.0 | 65.3 | 62.6 | 39.8 | 37.7 |
| 8 | 138.7 | 90.2 | 47.5 | 40.1 | 90.0 | 90.0 | 62.3 | 72.4 | 25.8 | 55.4 |
| 9 | 138.8 | 126.6 | 56.9 | 65.8 | 90.0 | 90.0 | 64.4 | 62.2 | 36.3 | 36.1 |
| 10 | 112.4 | 129.4 | 68.2 | 84.2 | 89.9 | 90.0 | 71.2 | 51.6 | 54.1 | 36.2 |
| 11 | 133.0 | 124.2 | 55.7 | 52.5 | 91.4 | 91.7 | 60.5 | 64.7 | 28.0 | 42.1 |
| 12 | 130.7 | 175.5 | 86.5 | 95.8 | 90.3 | 98.9 | 61.8 | 88.1 | 39.1 | 63.3 |
| 13 | 137.4 | 187.4 | 85.2 | 80.5 | 92.2 | 94 | 71.4 | 85.5 | 35.8 | 75.6 |
| 14 | 153.6 | 113.3 | 81.9 | 67.6 | 95.5 | 87.9 | 82.8 | 68.2 | 69.1 | 55.6 |
| 15 | 150.8 | 166.9 | 92.4 | 93.9 | 90.2 | 94.5 | 64.1 | 65.4 | 38.5 | 41.5 |
| 16 | 133.6 | 115.7 | 33.7 | 62.8 | 83.3 | 82.2 | 39.9 | 46.3 | 13.8 | 16.6 |
| 17 | 159.8 | 148.7 | 83.5 | 74.4 | 93.4 | 89.3 | 58.9 | 41.2 | 24.7 | 18.3 |
| 18 | 117.4 | 147.6 | 61.2 | 102.3 | 88.2 | 88.7 | 42.9 | 46.6 | 25.2 | 24.5 |
| Mean ± SD | 136.6 ± 15.4 | 135.2 ± 26.5 | 63.5 ± 19.7 | 71.0 ± 23.5 | 90.3 ± 2.4 | 90.3 ± 3.3 | 62.1 ± 9.6 | 62.2 ± 12.2 | 35.3 ± 2.4 | 39.7 ± 15.0 |
|
| 0.821 | 0.098 | 0.913 | 0.988 | 0.208 | |||||
Notes: D90, dose to 90% of the target volume; D100, dose to 100% of the target volume; V100, the target volume receiving 100% of prescription dose; V150, the target volume receiving 150% of prescription dose.
Comparing the quality evaluation parameters (CI, EI and HI) between pre-implantation and post-implantation in 18 lesions with recurrence of rectal cancer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.74 | 0.78 | 0.20 | 0.14 | 0.34 | 0.42 |
| 2 | 0.77 | 0.73 | 0.15 | 0.21 | 0.25 | 0.27 |
| 3 | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.28 | 0.34 |
| 4 | 0.71 | 0.74 | 0.24 | 0.20 | 0.31 | 0.33 |
| 5 | 0.76 | 0.68 | 0.17 | 0.29 | 0.37 | 0.29 |
| 6 | 0.62 | 0.63 | 0.40 | 0.37 | 0.30 | 0.28 |
| 7 | 0.68 | 0.65 | 0.29 | 0.34 | 0.27 | 0.30 |
| 8 | 0.78 | 0.60 | 0.14 | 0.44 | 0.31 | 0.20 |
| 9 | 0.69 | 0.66 | 0.27 | 0.32 | 0.28 | 0.31 |
| 10 | 0.47 | 0.55 | 0.84 | 0.57 | 0.21 | 0.43 |
| 11 | 0.67 | 0.59 | 0.33 | 0.5 | 0.34 | 0.29 |
| 12 | 0.42 | 0.29 | 0.16 | 0.17 | 0.32 | 0.12 |
| 13 | 0.34 | 0.41 | 0.55 | 0.62 | 0.23 | 0.09 |
| 14 | 0.35 | 0.33 | 0.16 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.22 |
| 15 | 0.67 | 0.73 | 0.31 | 0.28 | 0.29 | 0.31 |
| 16 | 0.71 | 0.67 | 0.15 | 0.18 | 0.52 | 0.44 |
| 17 | 0.60 | 0.71 | 0.51 | 0.23 | 0.37 | 0.54 |
| 18 | 0.50 | 0.52 | 0.44 | 0.60 | 0.45 | 0.48 |
| Mean ± SD | 0.62 ± 0.14 | 0.61 ± 0.14 | 0.31 ± 0.18 | 0.33 ± 0.16 | 0.31 ± 0.08 | 0.31 ± 0.12 |
|
| 0.517 | 0.528 | 0.964 | |||
Notes: CI, conformal index; EI, external index; HI, homogeneity index.
Comparing exposure of radiation doses to the bladder and bowel between pre-implantation and post-implantation in 13 patients with recurrence of rectal cancer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 | 29.4 | 25.4 | 36.7 | 35.6 | 32.1 | 57.8 | 42.5 | 72.3 |
| 2 | 49.3 | 54.4 | 66.7 | 65.5 | 74.3 | 27.2 | 93.0 | 31.5 |
| 3 | 11.0 | 11.0 | 18.7 | 20.5 | 50.9 | 70.5 | 70.1 | 93.8 |
| 4 | 73.2 | 36.9 | 102.0 | 55.0 | 43.4 | 103.8 | 61.0 | 138.8 |
| 5 | 12.3 | 15.9 | 15.2 | 18.6 | 27.3 | 0.8 | 39.4 | 1.5 |
| 6 | 19.8 | 43.5 | 30.9 | 69.1 | 64.3 | 71.6 | 83.8 | 93.4 |
| 7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 42.2 | 69.3 | 52.1 | 85.8 |
| 8 | 20.3 | 23.3 | 35.5 | 42.4 | 61.1 | 72.0 | 70.9 | 88.6 |
| 9 | 20.8 | 34.1 | 27.1 | 42.5 | 77.6 | 38.6 | 103.5 | 47.2 |
| 10 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 51.6 | 24.2 | 73.0 | 37.3 |
| 11 | 12.8 | 18.3 | 16.3 | 24.0 | 3.9 | 3.5 | 6.2 | 5.7 |
| 12 | 34.0 | 26.3 | 40.4 | 32.7 | 7.0 | 46.2 | 11.7 | 64.4 |
| 13 | 11.1 | 31.4 | 43.0 | 40.8 | 39.7 | 34.2 | 54.1 | 42.5 |
| Mean ± SD | 22.7 ± 20.2 | 24.7 ± 15.9 | 33.4 ± 27.4 | 34.4 ± 21.8 | 44.3 ± 22.9 | 47.7 ± 30.0 | 58.6 ± 28.8 | 61.8 ± 39.0 |
| p-value | 0.640 | 0.851 | 0.707 | 0.790 | ||||
Notes: bladder D5cc (exposure radiation dose of 5 cm3 bladder volume), bladder D2cc (exposure radiation dose of 2 cm3 bladder volume), bowel D5cc (exposure radiation dose of 5 cm3 bowel volume), bowel D2cc (exposure radiation dose of 2 cm3 bowel volume).
Assessment of toxicity according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE; ver. 4.03)
| Pain | Skin/mucosal | GU | GI | Total | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade | ≤2 | ≥3 | ≤2 | ≥3 | ≤2 | ≥3 | ≤2 | ≥3 | ≤2 | ≥3 |
| Acute toxicities | ||||||||||
| Cases | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| Percentage (%) | 11.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.6 | 0 | 5.6 | 0 | 22.2 | 0 |
| Chronic toxicities | ||||||||||
| Cases | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 1 |
| Percentage (%) | 5.6 | 0 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 11.1 | 0 | 5.6 | 0 | 27.8 | 5.6 |
Notes: GU, genitourinary system; GI, gastrointestinal system.