Cargando…

Which Bone Marrow Sparing Strategy and Radiotherapy Technology Is Most Beneficial in Bone Marrow-Sparing Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Cervical Cancer?

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the dosimetric parameters of different bone marrow sparing strategies and radiotherapy technologies and determine the optimal strategy to reduce hematologic toxicity associated with concurrent chemoradiation (cCRT) for cervical cancer. METHODS: A total of 15 patients with Fed...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yu, De-Yang, Bai, Yan-Ling, Feng, Yue, Wang, Le, Yun, Wei-Kang, Li, Xin, Song, Jia-Yu, Yang, Shan-Shan, Zhang, Yun-Yan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7773663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33392067
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.554241
_version_ 1783630092520390656
author Yu, De-Yang
Bai, Yan-Ling
Feng, Yue
Wang, Le
Yun, Wei-Kang
Li, Xin
Song, Jia-Yu
Yang, Shan-Shan
Zhang, Yun-Yan
author_facet Yu, De-Yang
Bai, Yan-Ling
Feng, Yue
Wang, Le
Yun, Wei-Kang
Li, Xin
Song, Jia-Yu
Yang, Shan-Shan
Zhang, Yun-Yan
author_sort Yu, De-Yang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To evaluate the dosimetric parameters of different bone marrow sparing strategies and radiotherapy technologies and determine the optimal strategy to reduce hematologic toxicity associated with concurrent chemoradiation (cCRT) for cervical cancer. METHODS: A total of 15 patients with Federation International of Gynecology and Obsterics (FIGO) Stage IIB cervical cancer treated with cCRT were re-planned for bone marrow (BM)-sparing plans. First, we determined the optimal BM sparing strategy for intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), including a BMS-IMRT plan that used total BM sparing (IMRT-BM) as the dose-volume constraint, and another plan used os coxae (OC) and lumbosacral spine (LS) sparing (IMRT-LS+OC) to compare the plan without BM-sparing (IMRT-N). Then, we determined the optimal technology for the BMS-IMRT, including fixed-field IMRT (FF-IMRT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT). The conformity and homogeneity of PTV, exposure volume of OARs, and efficiency of radiation delivery were analyzed. RESULTS: Compared with the IMRT-N group, the average volume of BM that received ≥10, ≥20, ≥30, and ≥40 Gy decreased significantly in both two BM-sparing groups, especially in the IMRT-LS+OC group, meanwhile, two BMS-IMRT plans exhibited the similar effect on PTV coverage and other organs at risk (OARs) sparing. Among three common IMRT techniques in clinic, HT was significantly less effective than VMAT and FF-IMRT in the aspect of BM-Sparing. Additionally, VMAT exhibited more efficient radiation delivery. CONCLUSION: We recommend the use of VMAT with OC and LS as separate dose-volume constraints in cervical cancer patients aiming at reducing hematologic toxicity associated with cCRT, especially in developing countries.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7773663
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77736632021-01-01 Which Bone Marrow Sparing Strategy and Radiotherapy Technology Is Most Beneficial in Bone Marrow-Sparing Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Cervical Cancer? Yu, De-Yang Bai, Yan-Ling Feng, Yue Wang, Le Yun, Wei-Kang Li, Xin Song, Jia-Yu Yang, Shan-Shan Zhang, Yun-Yan Front Oncol Oncology BACKGROUND: To evaluate the dosimetric parameters of different bone marrow sparing strategies and radiotherapy technologies and determine the optimal strategy to reduce hematologic toxicity associated with concurrent chemoradiation (cCRT) for cervical cancer. METHODS: A total of 15 patients with Federation International of Gynecology and Obsterics (FIGO) Stage IIB cervical cancer treated with cCRT were re-planned for bone marrow (BM)-sparing plans. First, we determined the optimal BM sparing strategy for intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), including a BMS-IMRT plan that used total BM sparing (IMRT-BM) as the dose-volume constraint, and another plan used os coxae (OC) and lumbosacral spine (LS) sparing (IMRT-LS+OC) to compare the plan without BM-sparing (IMRT-N). Then, we determined the optimal technology for the BMS-IMRT, including fixed-field IMRT (FF-IMRT), volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT). The conformity and homogeneity of PTV, exposure volume of OARs, and efficiency of radiation delivery were analyzed. RESULTS: Compared with the IMRT-N group, the average volume of BM that received ≥10, ≥20, ≥30, and ≥40 Gy decreased significantly in both two BM-sparing groups, especially in the IMRT-LS+OC group, meanwhile, two BMS-IMRT plans exhibited the similar effect on PTV coverage and other organs at risk (OARs) sparing. Among three common IMRT techniques in clinic, HT was significantly less effective than VMAT and FF-IMRT in the aspect of BM-Sparing. Additionally, VMAT exhibited more efficient radiation delivery. CONCLUSION: We recommend the use of VMAT with OC and LS as separate dose-volume constraints in cervical cancer patients aiming at reducing hematologic toxicity associated with cCRT, especially in developing countries. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-12-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7773663/ /pubmed/33392067 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.554241 Text en Copyright © 2020 Yu, Bai, Feng, Wang, Yun, Li, Song, Yang and Zhang http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Yu, De-Yang
Bai, Yan-Ling
Feng, Yue
Wang, Le
Yun, Wei-Kang
Li, Xin
Song, Jia-Yu
Yang, Shan-Shan
Zhang, Yun-Yan
Which Bone Marrow Sparing Strategy and Radiotherapy Technology Is Most Beneficial in Bone Marrow-Sparing Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Cervical Cancer?
title Which Bone Marrow Sparing Strategy and Radiotherapy Technology Is Most Beneficial in Bone Marrow-Sparing Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Cervical Cancer?
title_full Which Bone Marrow Sparing Strategy and Radiotherapy Technology Is Most Beneficial in Bone Marrow-Sparing Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Cervical Cancer?
title_fullStr Which Bone Marrow Sparing Strategy and Radiotherapy Technology Is Most Beneficial in Bone Marrow-Sparing Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Cervical Cancer?
title_full_unstemmed Which Bone Marrow Sparing Strategy and Radiotherapy Technology Is Most Beneficial in Bone Marrow-Sparing Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Cervical Cancer?
title_short Which Bone Marrow Sparing Strategy and Radiotherapy Technology Is Most Beneficial in Bone Marrow-Sparing Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Patients With Cervical Cancer?
title_sort which bone marrow sparing strategy and radiotherapy technology is most beneficial in bone marrow-sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy for patients with cervical cancer?
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7773663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33392067
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.554241
work_keys_str_mv AT yudeyang whichbonemarrowsparingstrategyandradiotherapytechnologyismostbeneficialinbonemarrowsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyforpatientswithcervicalcancer
AT baiyanling whichbonemarrowsparingstrategyandradiotherapytechnologyismostbeneficialinbonemarrowsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyforpatientswithcervicalcancer
AT fengyue whichbonemarrowsparingstrategyandradiotherapytechnologyismostbeneficialinbonemarrowsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyforpatientswithcervicalcancer
AT wangle whichbonemarrowsparingstrategyandradiotherapytechnologyismostbeneficialinbonemarrowsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyforpatientswithcervicalcancer
AT yunweikang whichbonemarrowsparingstrategyandradiotherapytechnologyismostbeneficialinbonemarrowsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyforpatientswithcervicalcancer
AT lixin whichbonemarrowsparingstrategyandradiotherapytechnologyismostbeneficialinbonemarrowsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyforpatientswithcervicalcancer
AT songjiayu whichbonemarrowsparingstrategyandradiotherapytechnologyismostbeneficialinbonemarrowsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyforpatientswithcervicalcancer
AT yangshanshan whichbonemarrowsparingstrategyandradiotherapytechnologyismostbeneficialinbonemarrowsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyforpatientswithcervicalcancer
AT zhangyunyan whichbonemarrowsparingstrategyandradiotherapytechnologyismostbeneficialinbonemarrowsparingintensitymodulatedradiationtherapyforpatientswithcervicalcancer