Literature DB >> 8420878

The role of the urethrogram during simulation for localized prostate cancer.

M Roach1, B Pickett, J Holland, K A Zapotowski, D L Marsh, B S Tatera.   

Abstract

Urethrograms on 89 consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer were evaluated retrospectively, and the inferior border of the treatment field based on this study was compared with the inferior border that would have been defined by using the lower border of the ischial tuberosities. An analysis of the relationship between the margin used and the dose at the inferior border of the prostate supported our policy of requiring a 2 cm margin for optimal coverage of the prostate. Inclusion of at least 1 cm of proximal penile urethra was essential to ensure this 2 cm margin. Based on this assumption, twenty-five percent of patients would have had an inadequate margin if the lower border of the ischial tuberosities had been used instead of the urethrogram to define the inferior border of the treatment field. Assuming that a margin of more than 3 cm inferiorly is excessive, 11% of patients would have had excessive urethral irradiation if the bottom of the ischial tuberosities had been used to define the inferior border. Combining these two extremes, more than one in three patients would have had an inappropriate inferior margin if the bottom of the ischial tuberosities had been used to define the inferior border of the treatment field. There was no apparent increase in morbidity as a result of the urethrograms or an increase in treatment related toxicity in association with using the treatment fields defined by urethrography. Computed tomography was complimentary in defining the apex of the prostate. These data support the routine use of the urethrograms during simulation for localized prostate cancer. The use of the lower border of the ischial tuberosities to define the inferior border of the treatment field is associated with an unacceptable risk of either underdosing the apical portion of the prostate or overdosing the urethra.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8420878     DOI: 10.1016/0360-3016(93)90352-v

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  5 in total

1.  Erectile dysfunction after prostate three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy. Correlation with the dose to the penile bulb.

Authors:  A Magli; M Giangreco; M Crespi; A Negri; T Ceschia; G De Giorgi; F Titone; G Parisi; S Fongione
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2012-09-29       Impact factor: 3.621

2.  Sequence of hormonal therapy and radiotherapy field size in unfavourable, localised prostate cancer (NRG/RTOG 9413): long-term results of a randomised, phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Mack Roach; Jennifer Moughan; Colleen A F Lawton; Adam P Dicker; Kenneth L Zeitzer; Elizabeth M Gore; Young Kwok; Michael J Seider; I-Chow Hsu; Alan C Hartford; Eric M Horwitz; Kosj Yamoah; Christopher U Jones; Jeff M Michalski; W Robert Lee; Thomas M Pisansky; Rachel Rabinovitch; Marvin Rotman; Rodger M Pryzant; Harold E Kim; Charles R Thomas; William U Shipley; Howard M Sandler
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2018-10-10       Impact factor: 41.316

3.  An update of the phase III trial comparing whole pelvic to prostate only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant to adjuvant total androgen suppression: updated analysis of RTOG 94-13, with emphasis on unexpected hormone/radiation interactions.

Authors:  Colleen A Lawton; Michelle DeSilvio; Mack Roach; Valery Uhl; Robert Kirsch; Michael Seider; Marvin Rotman; Christopher Jones; Sucha Asbell; Richard Valicenti; Stephen Hahn; Charles R Thomas
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2007-05-24       Impact factor: 7.038

4.  Urethrogram-Directed Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer in Patients with Contraindications to Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Ima Paydar; Brian S Kim; Robyn A Cyr; Harriss Rashid; Amna Anjum; Thomas M Yung; Siyuan Lei; Brian T Collins; Simeng Suy; Anatoly Dritschilo; John H Lynch; Sean P Collins
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 6.244

5.  CT slice index and thickness: impact on organ contouring in radiation treatment planning for prostate cancer.

Authors:  E Berthelet; M Liu; P Truong; P Czaykowski; N Kalach; C Yu; K Patterson; T Currie; S Kristensen; W Kwan; V Moravan
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.102

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.