Cargando…

Comparison of elective inguinal node irradiation techniques in anal cancer

PURPOSE: To compare photon thunderbird with deep match (technique 1) with 3-field technique with electron inguinal boost (technique 2) in acute skin toxicity, toxicity-related treatment breaks and patterns of failure in elective inguinal radiation therapy (RT) for curative chemoradiation in anal can...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cha, Jihye, Seong, Jinsil, Keum, Ki Chang, Lee, Chang Geol, Koom, Woong Sub
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3429908/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22984676
http://dx.doi.org/10.3857/roj.2011.29.4.236
_version_ 1782241865274228736
author Cha, Jihye
Seong, Jinsil
Keum, Ki Chang
Lee, Chang Geol
Koom, Woong Sub
author_facet Cha, Jihye
Seong, Jinsil
Keum, Ki Chang
Lee, Chang Geol
Koom, Woong Sub
author_sort Cha, Jihye
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare photon thunderbird with deep match (technique 1) with 3-field technique with electron inguinal boost (technique 2) in acute skin toxicity, toxicity-related treatment breaks and patterns of failure in elective inguinal radiation therapy (RT) for curative chemoradiation in anal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen patients treated between January 2008 and September 2010 without evidence of inguinal and distant metastasis were retrospectively reviewed. In 9 patients with technique 1, dose to inguinal and whole pelvis area was 41.4 to 45 Gy and total dose was 59.4 Gy. In 8 patients with technique 2, doses to inguinal, whole pelvis, gross tumor were 36 to 41.4 Gy, 36 to 41.4 Gy, and 45 to 54 Gy, respectively. The median follow-up period was 27.6 and 14.8 months in group technique 1 and 2, respectively. RESULTS: The incidences of grade 3 radiation dermatitis were 56% (5 patients) and 50% (4 patients), dose ranges grade 3 dermatitis appeared were 41.4 to 50.4 Gy and 45 to 54 Gy in group technique 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.819). The areas affected by grade 3 dermatitis in 2 groups were as follow: perianal and perineal areas in 40% and 25%, perianal and inguinal areas in 0% and 50%, and perianal area only in 60% and 25%, respectively (p = 0.196). No inguinal failure has been observed. CONCLUSION: Photon thunderbird with deep match technique and 3-field technique with electron inguinal boost showed similar incidence of radiation dermatitis. However, photon thunderbird with deep match seems to increase the possibility of severe perineal dermatitis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3429908
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34299082012-11-02 Comparison of elective inguinal node irradiation techniques in anal cancer Cha, Jihye Seong, Jinsil Keum, Ki Chang Lee, Chang Geol Koom, Woong Sub Radiation Oncol J Original Article PURPOSE: To compare photon thunderbird with deep match (technique 1) with 3-field technique with electron inguinal boost (technique 2) in acute skin toxicity, toxicity-related treatment breaks and patterns of failure in elective inguinal radiation therapy (RT) for curative chemoradiation in anal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen patients treated between January 2008 and September 2010 without evidence of inguinal and distant metastasis were retrospectively reviewed. In 9 patients with technique 1, dose to inguinal and whole pelvis area was 41.4 to 45 Gy and total dose was 59.4 Gy. In 8 patients with technique 2, doses to inguinal, whole pelvis, gross tumor were 36 to 41.4 Gy, 36 to 41.4 Gy, and 45 to 54 Gy, respectively. The median follow-up period was 27.6 and 14.8 months in group technique 1 and 2, respectively. RESULTS: The incidences of grade 3 radiation dermatitis were 56% (5 patients) and 50% (4 patients), dose ranges grade 3 dermatitis appeared were 41.4 to 50.4 Gy and 45 to 54 Gy in group technique 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.819). The areas affected by grade 3 dermatitis in 2 groups were as follow: perianal and perineal areas in 40% and 25%, perianal and inguinal areas in 0% and 50%, and perianal area only in 60% and 25%, respectively (p = 0.196). No inguinal failure has been observed. CONCLUSION: Photon thunderbird with deep match technique and 3-field technique with electron inguinal boost showed similar incidence of radiation dermatitis. However, photon thunderbird with deep match seems to increase the possibility of severe perineal dermatitis. The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology 2011-12 2011-12-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3429908/ /pubmed/22984676 http://dx.doi.org/10.3857/roj.2011.29.4.236 Text en Copyright © 2011. The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Cha, Jihye
Seong, Jinsil
Keum, Ki Chang
Lee, Chang Geol
Koom, Woong Sub
Comparison of elective inguinal node irradiation techniques in anal cancer
title Comparison of elective inguinal node irradiation techniques in anal cancer
title_full Comparison of elective inguinal node irradiation techniques in anal cancer
title_fullStr Comparison of elective inguinal node irradiation techniques in anal cancer
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of elective inguinal node irradiation techniques in anal cancer
title_short Comparison of elective inguinal node irradiation techniques in anal cancer
title_sort comparison of elective inguinal node irradiation techniques in anal cancer
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3429908/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22984676
http://dx.doi.org/10.3857/roj.2011.29.4.236
work_keys_str_mv AT chajihye comparisonofelectiveinguinalnodeirradiationtechniquesinanalcancer
AT seongjinsil comparisonofelectiveinguinalnodeirradiationtechniquesinanalcancer
AT keumkichang comparisonofelectiveinguinalnodeirradiationtechniquesinanalcancer
AT leechanggeol comparisonofelectiveinguinalnodeirradiationtechniquesinanalcancer
AT koomwoongsub comparisonofelectiveinguinalnodeirradiationtechniquesinanalcancer