Cargando…

Short-term clinical outcome and dosimetric comparison of tandem and ring versus tandem and ovoids intracavitary applicators

PURPOSE: To compare the short-term toxicity and dosimetry of tandem and ring (TR), and tandem and ovoid (TO) applicators in treatment of gynecologic malignancy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Following pelvic external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), a total of 52 computed tomography-based plans from 13 patien...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ma, John K., Mourad, Waleed F., Allbright, Robert, Packianathan, Satyaseelan, Harrell, Leslie M., Chinchar, Edmund, Nguyen, Alex, Vijayakumar, Srinivasan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4499513/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26207110
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2015.51853
_version_ 1782380793982615552
author Ma, John K.
Mourad, Waleed F.
Allbright, Robert
Packianathan, Satyaseelan
Harrell, Leslie M.
Chinchar, Edmund
Nguyen, Alex
Vijayakumar, Srinivasan
author_facet Ma, John K.
Mourad, Waleed F.
Allbright, Robert
Packianathan, Satyaseelan
Harrell, Leslie M.
Chinchar, Edmund
Nguyen, Alex
Vijayakumar, Srinivasan
author_sort Ma, John K.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare the short-term toxicity and dosimetry of tandem and ring (TR), and tandem and ovoid (TO) applicators in treatment of gynecologic malignancy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Following pelvic external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), a total of 52 computed tomography-based plans from 13 patients with cervical cancer (FIGO IB2-IIIB) were evaluated for HDR brachytherapy. Prescription was 7 Gy to the ICRU point A for four weekly fractions. Gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities were evaluated. Clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk were delineated on CT scans. Bladder, rectum, and sigmoid mean doses and D(2cc) were calculated. Treatment time and irradiated tissue volume were compared. Percent of CTV receiving 100% (CTV(100%)) of the prescribed dose as well as the percent of the prescription dose covering 90% of the CTV (D(90)) were evaluated. RESULTS: Gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities were not different between TO and TR applicators. No significant differences in the dose to the right and left point A, or the left point B were observed. TO delivered a higher dose to right point B. Organs at risk doses were similar between the two applicators, except mean rectal dose was lower for TO applicator. Overall, TO treats a larger tissue volume than TR. Mean treatment time was shorter for TR. Tumor coverage (D(90) and CTV(100%)) was equivalent between TO and TR applicators. CONCLUSION: Although TO treats a larger tissue volume than TR, short-term toxicities and tumor coverage are similar. Long-term clinical outcomes will be elucidated with longer follow up period.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4499513
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Termedia Publishing House
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44995132015-07-23 Short-term clinical outcome and dosimetric comparison of tandem and ring versus tandem and ovoids intracavitary applicators Ma, John K. Mourad, Waleed F. Allbright, Robert Packianathan, Satyaseelan Harrell, Leslie M. Chinchar, Edmund Nguyen, Alex Vijayakumar, Srinivasan J Contemp Brachytherapy Original Paper PURPOSE: To compare the short-term toxicity and dosimetry of tandem and ring (TR), and tandem and ovoid (TO) applicators in treatment of gynecologic malignancy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Following pelvic external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), a total of 52 computed tomography-based plans from 13 patients with cervical cancer (FIGO IB2-IIIB) were evaluated for HDR brachytherapy. Prescription was 7 Gy to the ICRU point A for four weekly fractions. Gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities were evaluated. Clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk were delineated on CT scans. Bladder, rectum, and sigmoid mean doses and D(2cc) were calculated. Treatment time and irradiated tissue volume were compared. Percent of CTV receiving 100% (CTV(100%)) of the prescribed dose as well as the percent of the prescription dose covering 90% of the CTV (D(90)) were evaluated. RESULTS: Gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities were not different between TO and TR applicators. No significant differences in the dose to the right and left point A, or the left point B were observed. TO delivered a higher dose to right point B. Organs at risk doses were similar between the two applicators, except mean rectal dose was lower for TO applicator. Overall, TO treats a larger tissue volume than TR. Mean treatment time was shorter for TR. Tumor coverage (D(90) and CTV(100%)) was equivalent between TO and TR applicators. CONCLUSION: Although TO treats a larger tissue volume than TR, short-term toxicities and tumor coverage are similar. Long-term clinical outcomes will be elucidated with longer follow up period. Termedia Publishing House 2015-05-28 2015-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4499513/ /pubmed/26207110 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2015.51853 Text en Copyright © 2015 Termedia http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Ma, John K.
Mourad, Waleed F.
Allbright, Robert
Packianathan, Satyaseelan
Harrell, Leslie M.
Chinchar, Edmund
Nguyen, Alex
Vijayakumar, Srinivasan
Short-term clinical outcome and dosimetric comparison of tandem and ring versus tandem and ovoids intracavitary applicators
title Short-term clinical outcome and dosimetric comparison of tandem and ring versus tandem and ovoids intracavitary applicators
title_full Short-term clinical outcome and dosimetric comparison of tandem and ring versus tandem and ovoids intracavitary applicators
title_fullStr Short-term clinical outcome and dosimetric comparison of tandem and ring versus tandem and ovoids intracavitary applicators
title_full_unstemmed Short-term clinical outcome and dosimetric comparison of tandem and ring versus tandem and ovoids intracavitary applicators
title_short Short-term clinical outcome and dosimetric comparison of tandem and ring versus tandem and ovoids intracavitary applicators
title_sort short-term clinical outcome and dosimetric comparison of tandem and ring versus tandem and ovoids intracavitary applicators
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4499513/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26207110
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2015.51853
work_keys_str_mv AT majohnk shorttermclinicaloutcomeanddosimetriccomparisonoftandemandringversustandemandovoidsintracavitaryapplicators
AT mouradwaleedf shorttermclinicaloutcomeanddosimetriccomparisonoftandemandringversustandemandovoidsintracavitaryapplicators
AT allbrightrobert shorttermclinicaloutcomeanddosimetriccomparisonoftandemandringversustandemandovoidsintracavitaryapplicators
AT packianathansatyaseelan shorttermclinicaloutcomeanddosimetriccomparisonoftandemandringversustandemandovoidsintracavitaryapplicators
AT harrelllesliem shorttermclinicaloutcomeanddosimetriccomparisonoftandemandringversustandemandovoidsintracavitaryapplicators
AT chincharedmund shorttermclinicaloutcomeanddosimetriccomparisonoftandemandringversustandemandovoidsintracavitaryapplicators
AT nguyenalex shorttermclinicaloutcomeanddosimetriccomparisonoftandemandringversustandemandovoidsintracavitaryapplicators
AT vijayakumarsrinivasan shorttermclinicaloutcomeanddosimetriccomparisonoftandemandringversustandemandovoidsintracavitaryapplicators