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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |