Cargando…
Estimation of the total rectal dose of radical external beam and intracavitary radiotherapy for uterine cervical cancer using the deformable image registration method
We adapted the deformable image registration (DIR) technique to accurately calculate the cumulative intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) rectal dose for treating uterine cervical cancer. A total of 14 patients with primary cervical cancer radically treated with IC...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4426921/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25678538 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rru127 |
Sumario: | We adapted the deformable image registration (DIR) technique to accurately calculate the cumulative intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) rectal dose for treating uterine cervical cancer. A total of 14 patients with primary cervical cancer radically treated with ICRT and EBRT were analysed using the Velocity AI(TM) software. Computed tomography (CT) images were registered, and EBRT and ICBT dose distributions were determined. Cumulative D(2cm)(3), D(1cm)(3) and D(0.1cm)(3) were calculated by simple addition of fractional values or by DIR. The accuracy of DIR was evaluated by means of a virtual phantom mimicking the rectum. The dice similarity coefficient (DSC) was calculated to evaluate rectal contour concordance between CT images before and after DIR. Virtual phantom analysis revealed that the average difference between the DIR-based phantom D(mean) and the simple phantom D(mean) was 1.9 ± 2.5 Gy (EQD(2)), and the DIR method included an uncertainty of ∼8.0%. The mean DSC between reference CT and CT was significantly improved after DIR (EBRT: 0.43 vs 0.85, P < 0.005; ICBT: 0.60 vs 0.87, P < 0.005). The average simple rectal D(2cm)(3), D(1cm)(3) and D(0.1cm)(3) values were 77.6, 81.6 and 91.1 Gy (EQD(2)), respectively; the DIR-based values were 76.2, 79.5 and 87.6 Gy, respectively. The simple addition values were overestimated, on average, by 3.1, 3.7 and 5.5 Gy, respectively, relative to the DIR-based values. In conclusion, the difference between the simple rectal dose–volume histogram (DVH) parameter addition and DIR-based cumulative rectal doses increased with decreasing DVH parameters. |
---|