Cargando…
Dosimetric comparison of organs at risk using different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume in anal cancer
BACKGROUND: There are different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume (CTV) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of anal cancer (AC). We conducted a planning comparison study to evaluate and compare the dose to relevant organs at risk (OARs) while using diffe...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7089901/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32016496 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00066-020-01587-y |
_version_ | 1783509815136354304 |
---|---|
author | Dapper, Hendrik Oechsner, Markus Münch, Stefan Diehl, Christian Peeken, Jan C. Borm, Kai Combs, Stephanie E. |
author_facet | Dapper, Hendrik Oechsner, Markus Münch, Stefan Diehl, Christian Peeken, Jan C. Borm, Kai Combs, Stephanie E. |
author_sort | Dapper, Hendrik |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: There are different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume (CTV) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of anal cancer (AC). We conducted a planning comparison study to evaluate and compare the dose to relevant organs at risk (OARs) while using different CTV definitions. METHODS: Twelve patients with a primary diagnosis of anal cancer, who were treated with primary chemoradiation (CRT), were selected. We generated four guideline-specific CTVs and subsequently planned target volumes (PTVs) on the planning CT scan of each patient. An IMRT plan for volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) was set up for each PTV. Dose parameters of the planned target volume (PTV) and OARs were evaluated and compared, too. RESULTS: The mean volume of the four PTVs ranged from 2138 cc to 2433 cc. The target volumes contoured by the authors based on the recommendations of each group were similar in the pelvis, while they differed significantly in the inguinal region. There were no significant differences between the four target volumes with regard to the dose parameters of the cranially located OARs. Conversely, some dose parameters concerning the genitals and the skin varied significantly among the different guidelines. CONCLUSION: The four contouring guidelines differ significantly concerning the inguinal region. In order to avoid inguinal recurrence and to protect relevant OARs, further investigations are needed to generate uniform standards for definition of the elective clinical target volume in the inguinal region. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7089901 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70899012020-03-26 Dosimetric comparison of organs at risk using different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume in anal cancer Dapper, Hendrik Oechsner, Markus Münch, Stefan Diehl, Christian Peeken, Jan C. Borm, Kai Combs, Stephanie E. Strahlenther Onkol Original Article BACKGROUND: There are different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume (CTV) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of anal cancer (AC). We conducted a planning comparison study to evaluate and compare the dose to relevant organs at risk (OARs) while using different CTV definitions. METHODS: Twelve patients with a primary diagnosis of anal cancer, who were treated with primary chemoradiation (CRT), were selected. We generated four guideline-specific CTVs and subsequently planned target volumes (PTVs) on the planning CT scan of each patient. An IMRT plan for volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) was set up for each PTV. Dose parameters of the planned target volume (PTV) and OARs were evaluated and compared, too. RESULTS: The mean volume of the four PTVs ranged from 2138 cc to 2433 cc. The target volumes contoured by the authors based on the recommendations of each group were similar in the pelvis, while they differed significantly in the inguinal region. There were no significant differences between the four target volumes with regard to the dose parameters of the cranially located OARs. Conversely, some dose parameters concerning the genitals and the skin varied significantly among the different guidelines. CONCLUSION: The four contouring guidelines differ significantly concerning the inguinal region. In order to avoid inguinal recurrence and to protect relevant OARs, further investigations are needed to generate uniform standards for definition of the elective clinical target volume in the inguinal region. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-02-03 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7089901/ /pubmed/32016496 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00066-020-01587-y Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Dapper, Hendrik Oechsner, Markus Münch, Stefan Diehl, Christian Peeken, Jan C. Borm, Kai Combs, Stephanie E. Dosimetric comparison of organs at risk using different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume in anal cancer |
title | Dosimetric comparison of organs at risk using different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume in anal cancer |
title_full | Dosimetric comparison of organs at risk using different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume in anal cancer |
title_fullStr | Dosimetric comparison of organs at risk using different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume in anal cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | Dosimetric comparison of organs at risk using different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume in anal cancer |
title_short | Dosimetric comparison of organs at risk using different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume in anal cancer |
title_sort | dosimetric comparison of organs at risk using different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume in anal cancer |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7089901/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32016496 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00066-020-01587-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dapperhendrik dosimetriccomparisonoforgansatriskusingdifferentcontouringguidelinesfordefinitionoftheclinicaltargetvolumeinanalcancer AT oechsnermarkus dosimetriccomparisonoforgansatriskusingdifferentcontouringguidelinesfordefinitionoftheclinicaltargetvolumeinanalcancer AT munchstefan dosimetriccomparisonoforgansatriskusingdifferentcontouringguidelinesfordefinitionoftheclinicaltargetvolumeinanalcancer AT diehlchristian dosimetriccomparisonoforgansatriskusingdifferentcontouringguidelinesfordefinitionoftheclinicaltargetvolumeinanalcancer AT peekenjanc dosimetriccomparisonoforgansatriskusingdifferentcontouringguidelinesfordefinitionoftheclinicaltargetvolumeinanalcancer AT bormkai dosimetriccomparisonoforgansatriskusingdifferentcontouringguidelinesfordefinitionoftheclinicaltargetvolumeinanalcancer AT combsstephaniee dosimetriccomparisonoforgansatriskusingdifferentcontouringguidelinesfordefinitionoftheclinicaltargetvolumeinanalcancer |