Cargando…

A dosimetric comparison of different treatment plans of palliative spinal bone irradiation: analysis of dose coverage with respect to ICRU 50 report

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to analyze three-dimensional (3D) dosimetric data of conventional two-dimensional (2D) palliative spinal bone irradiation using different reference points and treatment plans with respect to the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) Report 5...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Andic, Fundagul, Baz Cifci, Sule, Ors, Yasemin, Niang, Umar, Dirier, Ahmet, Adli, Mustafa
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636764/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19128500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-9966-28-2
_version_ 1782164300306055168
author Andic, Fundagul
Baz Cifci, Sule
Ors, Yasemin
Niang, Umar
Dirier, Ahmet
Adli, Mustafa
author_facet Andic, Fundagul
Baz Cifci, Sule
Ors, Yasemin
Niang, Umar
Dirier, Ahmet
Adli, Mustafa
author_sort Andic, Fundagul
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This study aimed to analyze three-dimensional (3D) dosimetric data of conventional two-dimensional (2D) palliative spinal bone irradiation using different reference points and treatment plans with respect to the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) Report 50. METHODS: Forty-five simulation CT scans of 39 patients previously treated for thoraco-lumbar spinal bone metastases were used. Three different treatment plans were created: (1) single posterior field plans using the ICRU reference points (ICRUrps); (2) single posterior field plans using the International Bone Metastasis Consensus Working Party reference points (IBMCrps); (3) two opposed anterior-posterior (AP-PA) field plans using the ICRUrps. The intended dose range for planning target volume (PTV) was 90% to 110% of the prescribed dose for AP-PA field plans. Cumulative dose-volume histograms were generated for each plan, and minimum, maximum and mean doses to the PTV, medulla spinalis, esophagus and intestines were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean percentages of minimum, maximum and mean PTV doses ± standard deviation were, respectively, 91 ± 1.3%, 108.8 ± 1.3% and 99.7 ± 1.3% in AP-PA field plans; 77.3 ± 2.6%, 122.2 ± 4.3% and 99.8 ± 2.6% in ICRUrp single field plans; and 83.7 ± 3.3%, 133.9 ± 7.1% and 108.8 ± 3.3% in IBMCrp single field plans. Minimum doses of both single field plans were significantly lower (p < 0.001) while maximum doses were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than AP-PA field plans. Minimum, maximum and mean doses were higher in IBMCrp single field plans than in ICRUrp single field plans (p < 0.001). The mean medulla spinalis doses were lower in AP-PA field plans than single posterior field plans (p < 0.001). Maximum doses for medulla spinalis were higher than 120% of the prescribed dose in 22 of 45 (49%) IBMCrp single field plans. Mean esophagus and intestinal doses were higher (p < 0.001) in AP-PA field plans than single field plans, however, less than 95% of the prescribed dose. CONCLUSION: In palliative spinal bone irradiation, 2D conventional single posterior field radiotherapy did not accomplish the ICRU Report 50 recommendations for PTV dose distribution, while the AP-PA field plans did achieve the intended dose ranges with a homogenous distribution and reasonable doses to the medulla spinalis, esophagus and intestines.
format Text
id pubmed-2636764
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26367642009-02-06 A dosimetric comparison of different treatment plans of palliative spinal bone irradiation: analysis of dose coverage with respect to ICRU 50 report Andic, Fundagul Baz Cifci, Sule Ors, Yasemin Niang, Umar Dirier, Ahmet Adli, Mustafa J Exp Clin Cancer Res Research BACKGROUND: This study aimed to analyze three-dimensional (3D) dosimetric data of conventional two-dimensional (2D) palliative spinal bone irradiation using different reference points and treatment plans with respect to the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) Report 50. METHODS: Forty-five simulation CT scans of 39 patients previously treated for thoraco-lumbar spinal bone metastases were used. Three different treatment plans were created: (1) single posterior field plans using the ICRU reference points (ICRUrps); (2) single posterior field plans using the International Bone Metastasis Consensus Working Party reference points (IBMCrps); (3) two opposed anterior-posterior (AP-PA) field plans using the ICRUrps. The intended dose range for planning target volume (PTV) was 90% to 110% of the prescribed dose for AP-PA field plans. Cumulative dose-volume histograms were generated for each plan, and minimum, maximum and mean doses to the PTV, medulla spinalis, esophagus and intestines were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean percentages of minimum, maximum and mean PTV doses ± standard deviation were, respectively, 91 ± 1.3%, 108.8 ± 1.3% and 99.7 ± 1.3% in AP-PA field plans; 77.3 ± 2.6%, 122.2 ± 4.3% and 99.8 ± 2.6% in ICRUrp single field plans; and 83.7 ± 3.3%, 133.9 ± 7.1% and 108.8 ± 3.3% in IBMCrp single field plans. Minimum doses of both single field plans were significantly lower (p < 0.001) while maximum doses were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than AP-PA field plans. Minimum, maximum and mean doses were higher in IBMCrp single field plans than in ICRUrp single field plans (p < 0.001). The mean medulla spinalis doses were lower in AP-PA field plans than single posterior field plans (p < 0.001). Maximum doses for medulla spinalis were higher than 120% of the prescribed dose in 22 of 45 (49%) IBMCrp single field plans. Mean esophagus and intestinal doses were higher (p < 0.001) in AP-PA field plans than single field plans, however, less than 95% of the prescribed dose. CONCLUSION: In palliative spinal bone irradiation, 2D conventional single posterior field radiotherapy did not accomplish the ICRU Report 50 recommendations for PTV dose distribution, while the AP-PA field plans did achieve the intended dose ranges with a homogenous distribution and reasonable doses to the medulla spinalis, esophagus and intestines. BioMed Central 2009-01-07 /pmc/articles/PMC2636764/ /pubmed/19128500 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-9966-28-2 Text en Copyright © 2009 Andic et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Andic, Fundagul
Baz Cifci, Sule
Ors, Yasemin
Niang, Umar
Dirier, Ahmet
Adli, Mustafa
A dosimetric comparison of different treatment plans of palliative spinal bone irradiation: analysis of dose coverage with respect to ICRU 50 report
title A dosimetric comparison of different treatment plans of palliative spinal bone irradiation: analysis of dose coverage with respect to ICRU 50 report
title_full A dosimetric comparison of different treatment plans of palliative spinal bone irradiation: analysis of dose coverage with respect to ICRU 50 report
title_fullStr A dosimetric comparison of different treatment plans of palliative spinal bone irradiation: analysis of dose coverage with respect to ICRU 50 report
title_full_unstemmed A dosimetric comparison of different treatment plans of palliative spinal bone irradiation: analysis of dose coverage with respect to ICRU 50 report
title_short A dosimetric comparison of different treatment plans of palliative spinal bone irradiation: analysis of dose coverage with respect to ICRU 50 report
title_sort dosimetric comparison of different treatment plans of palliative spinal bone irradiation: analysis of dose coverage with respect to icru 50 report
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636764/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19128500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-9966-28-2
work_keys_str_mv AT andicfundagul adosimetriccomparisonofdifferenttreatmentplansofpalliativespinalboneirradiationanalysisofdosecoveragewithrespecttoicru50report
AT bazcifcisule adosimetriccomparisonofdifferenttreatmentplansofpalliativespinalboneirradiationanalysisofdosecoveragewithrespecttoicru50report
AT orsyasemin adosimetriccomparisonofdifferenttreatmentplansofpalliativespinalboneirradiationanalysisofdosecoveragewithrespecttoicru50report
AT niangumar adosimetriccomparisonofdifferenttreatmentplansofpalliativespinalboneirradiationanalysisofdosecoveragewithrespecttoicru50report
AT dirierahmet adosimetriccomparisonofdifferenttreatmentplansofpalliativespinalboneirradiationanalysisofdosecoveragewithrespecttoicru50report
AT adlimustafa adosimetriccomparisonofdifferenttreatmentplansofpalliativespinalboneirradiationanalysisofdosecoveragewithrespecttoicru50report
AT andicfundagul dosimetriccomparisonofdifferenttreatmentplansofpalliativespinalboneirradiationanalysisofdosecoveragewithrespecttoicru50report
AT bazcifcisule dosimetriccomparisonofdifferenttreatmentplansofpalliativespinalboneirradiationanalysisofdosecoveragewithrespecttoicru50report
AT orsyasemin dosimetriccomparisonofdifferenttreatmentplansofpalliativespinalboneirradiationanalysisofdosecoveragewithrespecttoicru50report
AT niangumar dosimetriccomparisonofdifferenttreatmentplansofpalliativespinalboneirradiationanalysisofdosecoveragewithrespecttoicru50report
AT dirierahmet dosimetriccomparisonofdifferenttreatmentplansofpalliativespinalboneirradiationanalysisofdosecoveragewithrespecttoicru50report
AT adlimustafa dosimetriccomparisonofdifferenttreatmentplansofpalliativespinalboneirradiationanalysisofdosecoveragewithrespecttoicru50report