Cargando…

A comparative study of two reconstructive methods and different recommendations in intracavitary brachytherapy

PURPOSE: Intracavitary brachytherapy (ICB) is a widely used technique in the treatment of cervical cancer. In our Institute, we use different reconstructive methods in the conventional planning procedure. The main aim of this study was to compare these methods using critical organ doses obtained in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sresty, NVN Madhusudhana, Ramanjappa, Thogata, Rao, C. Ramakrishna, Raju, A Krishnam, Muralidhar, KR
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5104822/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27853480
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2010.19498
_version_ 1782466796388876288
author Sresty, NVN Madhusudhana
Ramanjappa, Thogata
Rao, C. Ramakrishna
Raju, A Krishnam
Muralidhar, KR
author_facet Sresty, NVN Madhusudhana
Ramanjappa, Thogata
Rao, C. Ramakrishna
Raju, A Krishnam
Muralidhar, KR
author_sort Sresty, NVN Madhusudhana
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Intracavitary brachytherapy (ICB) is a widely used technique in the treatment of cervical cancer. In our Institute, we use different reconstructive methods in the conventional planning procedure. The main aim of this study was to compare these methods using critical organ doses obtained in various treatment plans. There is a small difference in the recommendations in selecting bladder dose point between ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units & Measurements) -38 and ABS (American Brachytherapy Society). The second objective of the study was to find the difference in bladder dose using both recommendations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We have selected two methods: variable angle method (M1) and orthogonal method (M2). Two orthogonal sets of radiographs were taken into consideration using conventional simulator. All four radiographs were used in M1 and only two radiographs were used in M2. Bladder and rectum doses were calculated using ICRU-38 recommendations. For maximum bladder dose reference point as per the ABS recommendation, 4 to 5 reference points were marked on Foley’s balloon. RESULTS: 64% of plans were showing more bladder dose and 50% of plans presented more rectum dose in M1 compared to M2. Many of the plans reviled maximum bladder dose point, other than ICRU-38 bladder point in both methods. Variation was exceeded in 5% of considerable number of plans. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a difference in critical organ dose between two studied methods. There is an advantage of using variable angle reconstruction method in identifying the catheters. It is useful to follow ABS recommendation to find maximum bladder dose.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5104822
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Termedia Publishing House
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51048222016-11-16 A comparative study of two reconstructive methods and different recommendations in intracavitary brachytherapy Sresty, NVN Madhusudhana Ramanjappa, Thogata Rao, C. Ramakrishna Raju, A Krishnam Muralidhar, KR J Contemp Brachytherapy Original Article PURPOSE: Intracavitary brachytherapy (ICB) is a widely used technique in the treatment of cervical cancer. In our Institute, we use different reconstructive methods in the conventional planning procedure. The main aim of this study was to compare these methods using critical organ doses obtained in various treatment plans. There is a small difference in the recommendations in selecting bladder dose point between ICRU (International Commission on Radiation Units & Measurements) -38 and ABS (American Brachytherapy Society). The second objective of the study was to find the difference in bladder dose using both recommendations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We have selected two methods: variable angle method (M1) and orthogonal method (M2). Two orthogonal sets of radiographs were taken into consideration using conventional simulator. All four radiographs were used in M1 and only two radiographs were used in M2. Bladder and rectum doses were calculated using ICRU-38 recommendations. For maximum bladder dose reference point as per the ABS recommendation, 4 to 5 reference points were marked on Foley’s balloon. RESULTS: 64% of plans were showing more bladder dose and 50% of plans presented more rectum dose in M1 compared to M2. Many of the plans reviled maximum bladder dose point, other than ICRU-38 bladder point in both methods. Variation was exceeded in 5% of considerable number of plans. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a difference in critical organ dose between two studied methods. There is an advantage of using variable angle reconstruction method in identifying the catheters. It is useful to follow ABS recommendation to find maximum bladder dose. Termedia Publishing House 2011-01-14 2010-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5104822/ /pubmed/27853480 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2010.19498 Text en Copyright: © 2011 Termedia Sp. z o. o. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
spellingShingle Original Article
Sresty, NVN Madhusudhana
Ramanjappa, Thogata
Rao, C. Ramakrishna
Raju, A Krishnam
Muralidhar, KR
A comparative study of two reconstructive methods and different recommendations in intracavitary brachytherapy
title A comparative study of two reconstructive methods and different recommendations in intracavitary brachytherapy
title_full A comparative study of two reconstructive methods and different recommendations in intracavitary brachytherapy
title_fullStr A comparative study of two reconstructive methods and different recommendations in intracavitary brachytherapy
title_full_unstemmed A comparative study of two reconstructive methods and different recommendations in intracavitary brachytherapy
title_short A comparative study of two reconstructive methods and different recommendations in intracavitary brachytherapy
title_sort comparative study of two reconstructive methods and different recommendations in intracavitary brachytherapy
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5104822/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27853480
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2010.19498
work_keys_str_mv AT srestynvnmadhusudhana acomparativestudyoftworeconstructivemethodsanddifferentrecommendationsinintracavitarybrachytherapy
AT ramanjappathogata acomparativestudyoftworeconstructivemethodsanddifferentrecommendationsinintracavitarybrachytherapy
AT raocramakrishna acomparativestudyoftworeconstructivemethodsanddifferentrecommendationsinintracavitarybrachytherapy
AT rajuakrishnam acomparativestudyoftworeconstructivemethodsanddifferentrecommendationsinintracavitarybrachytherapy
AT muralidharkr acomparativestudyoftworeconstructivemethodsanddifferentrecommendationsinintracavitarybrachytherapy
AT srestynvnmadhusudhana comparativestudyoftworeconstructivemethodsanddifferentrecommendationsinintracavitarybrachytherapy
AT ramanjappathogata comparativestudyoftworeconstructivemethodsanddifferentrecommendationsinintracavitarybrachytherapy
AT raocramakrishna comparativestudyoftworeconstructivemethodsanddifferentrecommendationsinintracavitarybrachytherapy
AT rajuakrishnam comparativestudyoftworeconstructivemethodsanddifferentrecommendationsinintracavitarybrachytherapy
AT muralidharkr comparativestudyoftworeconstructivemethodsanddifferentrecommendationsinintracavitarybrachytherapy