A Case Series of Dosimetric Comparison-VMAT (RapidArc), IMRT, 3DCRT for Extended Field Radiotherapy in Cervical Cancer

P. Marimuthu, Sasipriya Ponniah, G. Ganesan, P. Ramamoorthy, Brindha Thangaraj, Venkatraman Pitchaikann
{"title":"A Case Series of Dosimetric Comparison-VMAT (RapidArc), IMRT, 3DCRT for Extended Field Radiotherapy in Cervical Cancer","authors":"P. Marimuthu, Sasipriya Ponniah, G. Ganesan, P. Ramamoorthy, Brindha Thangaraj, Venkatraman Pitchaikann","doi":"10.26420/austinjnuclmedradiother.2021.1028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To compare plans of 3DCRT, IMRT and VMAT (RapidArc) and evaluate them in different dosimetric aspects along with dose to organs at risk with each technique to determine the best treatment technique for Extended field RT in cervical cancer patients Material & Methods: We evaluated External Beam radiotherapy plans of 10 patients of FIGO 2018 stage rIIIC2 who received Extended Field Radiotherapy (EFRT) to primary site along with regional nodes-bilateral external, internal iliac lymph nodes, presacral and para-aortic lymph nodes. The dose prescribed for all patients was 50.4Gy/28 fractions at 180cGy/fraction. Few patients had received gross nodal boost following this, but for better comparison only the initial phase of 50.4Gy/28 fractions was considered. All patients were planned with 3DCRT, IMRT and RapidArc. We evaluated and compared these plans dosimetrically in terms of Homogeneity Index, Conformity Index, Target Volume Coverage, Gradient Index, Unified Dosimetry Index, Integral dose, Monitor units and Doses to Organs at risk such as Anorectum, Bladder, Bowel Bag, Bilateral Femoral Heads, Bilateral Kidneys and Bone Marrow. Results: Intensity modulated techniques RapidArc and IMRT significantly spared critical organs compared to 3DCRT. Between RapidArc and IMRT, the critical organ sparing was comparable, but RapidArc had better target coverage, lesser MU and lesser treatment time. All techniques had acceptable HI, CI, GI, UDI and whole body Integral dose. Conclusion: Intensity modulated techniques should be the standard for EFRT in cervical cancer. Both RapidArc and IMRT are acceptable techniques of treatment delivery although the former may be preferred if and when available.","PeriodicalId":424846,"journal":{"name":"Austin Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Austin Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26420/austinjnuclmedradiother.2021.1028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare plans of 3DCRT, IMRT and VMAT (RapidArc) and evaluate them in different dosimetric aspects along with dose to organs at risk with each technique to determine the best treatment technique for Extended field RT in cervical cancer patients Material & Methods: We evaluated External Beam radiotherapy plans of 10 patients of FIGO 2018 stage rIIIC2 who received Extended Field Radiotherapy (EFRT) to primary site along with regional nodes-bilateral external, internal iliac lymph nodes, presacral and para-aortic lymph nodes. The dose prescribed for all patients was 50.4Gy/28 fractions at 180cGy/fraction. Few patients had received gross nodal boost following this, but for better comparison only the initial phase of 50.4Gy/28 fractions was considered. All patients were planned with 3DCRT, IMRT and RapidArc. We evaluated and compared these plans dosimetrically in terms of Homogeneity Index, Conformity Index, Target Volume Coverage, Gradient Index, Unified Dosimetry Index, Integral dose, Monitor units and Doses to Organs at risk such as Anorectum, Bladder, Bowel Bag, Bilateral Femoral Heads, Bilateral Kidneys and Bone Marrow. Results: Intensity modulated techniques RapidArc and IMRT significantly spared critical organs compared to 3DCRT. Between RapidArc and IMRT, the critical organ sparing was comparable, but RapidArc had better target coverage, lesser MU and lesser treatment time. All techniques had acceptable HI, CI, GI, UDI and whole body Integral dose. Conclusion: Intensity modulated techniques should be the standard for EFRT in cervical cancer. Both RapidArc and IMRT are acceptable techniques of treatment delivery although the former may be preferred if and when available.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
vmat (RapidArc)、IMRT、3DCRT在宫颈癌扩展野放疗中的病例比较
目的:比较3DCRT、IMRT和VMAT (RapidArc)方案,并从不同剂量学方面对其进行评价,以及每种技术对危及器官的剂量,以确定宫颈癌患者大范围放疗的最佳治疗方案。我们评估了10例FIGO 2018期rIIIC2患者的外束放疗计划,这些患者接受了扩展野放疗(EFRT)至原发部位以及区域淋巴结-双侧髂外淋巴结、髂内淋巴结、骶前淋巴结和主动脉旁淋巴结。所有患者的处方剂量为50.4Gy/28次,剂量为180cGy/次。很少有患者在此之后获得总淋巴结增强,但为了更好地比较,只考虑了50.4Gy/28分数的初始阶段。所有患者均计划接受3DCRT、IMRT和RapidArc治疗。我们从均匀性指数、一致性指数、靶体积覆盖率、梯度指数、统一剂量指数、积分剂量、监测单位和危及器官(如肛肠、膀胱、肠袋、双侧股骨头、双侧肾脏和骨髓)的剂量方面对这些方案进行了评估和比较。结果:与3DCRT相比,强度调制技术RapidArc和IMRT可显著保护关键器官。在RapidArc和IMRT之间,关键器官保留是相当的,但RapidArc有更好的靶覆盖,更小的MU和更短的治疗时间。所有技术均具有可接受的HI、CI、GI、UDI和全身积分剂量。结论:强度调制技术应作为宫颈癌EFRT的标准技术。RapidArc和IMRT都是可接受的治疗技术,尽管如果有可能,前者可能是首选。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Case Series of Dosimetric Comparison-VMAT (RapidArc), IMRT, 3DCRT for Extended Field Radiotherapy in Cervical Cancer Low-Dose Radiation Therapy to Treat COVID-19: Results of the First Phase of Clinical Trials Role of 18F-FDG PET-CT in CNS Lymphoma-A Case Report Clinical Investigations of Percutaneous Vertebroplasty Combined with Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy for Patients with Spinal Metastases
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1