Cargando…

Volumetric (3D) bladder dose parameters are more reproducible than point (2D) dose parameters in vaginal vault high-dose-rate brachytherapy

There is no consensus on the use of computed tomography in vaginal cuff brachytherapy (VCB) planning. The purpose of this study was to prospectively determine the reproducibility of point bladder dose parameters (D(ICRU) and maximum dose), compared with volumetric-based parameters. Twenty-two patien...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sapienza, Lucas Gomes, Flosi, Adriana, Aiza, Antonio, de Assis Pellizzon, Antonio Cassio, Chojniak, Rubens, Baiocchi, Glauco
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4906382/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27296459
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep28074
_version_ 1782437410482683904
author Sapienza, Lucas Gomes
Flosi, Adriana
Aiza, Antonio
de Assis Pellizzon, Antonio Cassio
Chojniak, Rubens
Baiocchi, Glauco
author_facet Sapienza, Lucas Gomes
Flosi, Adriana
Aiza, Antonio
de Assis Pellizzon, Antonio Cassio
Chojniak, Rubens
Baiocchi, Glauco
author_sort Sapienza, Lucas Gomes
collection PubMed
description There is no consensus on the use of computed tomography in vaginal cuff brachytherapy (VCB) planning. The purpose of this study was to prospectively determine the reproducibility of point bladder dose parameters (D(ICRU) and maximum dose), compared with volumetric-based parameters. Twenty-two patients who were treated with high-dose-rate (HDR) VCB underwent simulation by computed tomography (CT-scan) with a Foley catheter at standard tension (position A) and extra tension (position B). CT-scan determined the bladder ICRU dose point in both positions and compared the displacement and recorded dose. Volumetric parameters (D0.1cc, D1.0cc, D2.0cc, D4.0cc and D50%) and point dose parameters were compared. The average spatial shift in ICRU dose point in the vertical, longitudinal and lateral directions was 2.91 mm (range: 0.10–9.00), 12.04 mm (range: 4.50–24.50) and 2.65 mm (range: 0.60–8.80), respectively. The D(ICRU) ratio for positions A and B was 1.64 (p < 0.001). Moreover, a decrease in Dmax was observed (p = 0.016). Tension level of the urinary catheter did not affect the volumetric parameters. Our data suggest that point parameters (D(ICRU) and Dmax) are not reproducible and are not the ideal choice for dose reporting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4906382
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49063822016-06-15 Volumetric (3D) bladder dose parameters are more reproducible than point (2D) dose parameters in vaginal vault high-dose-rate brachytherapy Sapienza, Lucas Gomes Flosi, Adriana Aiza, Antonio de Assis Pellizzon, Antonio Cassio Chojniak, Rubens Baiocchi, Glauco Sci Rep Article There is no consensus on the use of computed tomography in vaginal cuff brachytherapy (VCB) planning. The purpose of this study was to prospectively determine the reproducibility of point bladder dose parameters (D(ICRU) and maximum dose), compared with volumetric-based parameters. Twenty-two patients who were treated with high-dose-rate (HDR) VCB underwent simulation by computed tomography (CT-scan) with a Foley catheter at standard tension (position A) and extra tension (position B). CT-scan determined the bladder ICRU dose point in both positions and compared the displacement and recorded dose. Volumetric parameters (D0.1cc, D1.0cc, D2.0cc, D4.0cc and D50%) and point dose parameters were compared. The average spatial shift in ICRU dose point in the vertical, longitudinal and lateral directions was 2.91 mm (range: 0.10–9.00), 12.04 mm (range: 4.50–24.50) and 2.65 mm (range: 0.60–8.80), respectively. The D(ICRU) ratio for positions A and B was 1.64 (p < 0.001). Moreover, a decrease in Dmax was observed (p = 0.016). Tension level of the urinary catheter did not affect the volumetric parameters. Our data suggest that point parameters (D(ICRU) and Dmax) are not reproducible and are not the ideal choice for dose reporting. Nature Publishing Group 2016-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4906382/ /pubmed/27296459 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep28074 Text en Copyright © 2016, Macmillan Publishers Limited http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Article
Sapienza, Lucas Gomes
Flosi, Adriana
Aiza, Antonio
de Assis Pellizzon, Antonio Cassio
Chojniak, Rubens
Baiocchi, Glauco
Volumetric (3D) bladder dose parameters are more reproducible than point (2D) dose parameters in vaginal vault high-dose-rate brachytherapy
title Volumetric (3D) bladder dose parameters are more reproducible than point (2D) dose parameters in vaginal vault high-dose-rate brachytherapy
title_full Volumetric (3D) bladder dose parameters are more reproducible than point (2D) dose parameters in vaginal vault high-dose-rate brachytherapy
title_fullStr Volumetric (3D) bladder dose parameters are more reproducible than point (2D) dose parameters in vaginal vault high-dose-rate brachytherapy
title_full_unstemmed Volumetric (3D) bladder dose parameters are more reproducible than point (2D) dose parameters in vaginal vault high-dose-rate brachytherapy
title_short Volumetric (3D) bladder dose parameters are more reproducible than point (2D) dose parameters in vaginal vault high-dose-rate brachytherapy
title_sort volumetric (3d) bladder dose parameters are more reproducible than point (2d) dose parameters in vaginal vault high-dose-rate brachytherapy
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4906382/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27296459
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep28074
work_keys_str_mv AT sapienzalucasgomes volumetric3dbladderdoseparametersaremorereproduciblethanpoint2ddoseparametersinvaginalvaulthighdoseratebrachytherapy
AT flosiadriana volumetric3dbladderdoseparametersaremorereproduciblethanpoint2ddoseparametersinvaginalvaulthighdoseratebrachytherapy
AT aizaantonio volumetric3dbladderdoseparametersaremorereproduciblethanpoint2ddoseparametersinvaginalvaulthighdoseratebrachytherapy
AT deassispellizzonantoniocassio volumetric3dbladderdoseparametersaremorereproduciblethanpoint2ddoseparametersinvaginalvaulthighdoseratebrachytherapy
AT chojniakrubens volumetric3dbladderdoseparametersaremorereproduciblethanpoint2ddoseparametersinvaginalvaulthighdoseratebrachytherapy
AT baiocchiglauco volumetric3dbladderdoseparametersaremorereproduciblethanpoint2ddoseparametersinvaginalvaulthighdoseratebrachytherapy