Cargando…
Retrospective evaluation of planning margins for patients undergoing radical radiation therapy treatment for bladder cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and cone beam computed tomography
INTRODUCTION: Current contouring guidelines for curative radiation therapy for muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) recommend margins of 1.5–2.0 cm, applied to the clinical target volume (CTV). This study assessed whether the use of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), cone beam computed tomogr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8656189/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34288566 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.532 |
_version_ | 1784612232780316672 |
---|---|
author | Dower, Kathleene Ford, Andriana Sandford, Michael Doherty, Andrew Greenham, Stuart Kerin, Luke Dwyer, Patrick Hansen, Carmen Westhuyzen, Justin Shakespeare, Thomas |
author_facet | Dower, Kathleene Ford, Andriana Sandford, Michael Doherty, Andrew Greenham, Stuart Kerin, Luke Dwyer, Patrick Hansen, Carmen Westhuyzen, Justin Shakespeare, Thomas |
author_sort | Dower, Kathleene |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Current contouring guidelines for curative radiation therapy for muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) recommend margins of 1.5–2.0 cm, applied to the clinical target volume (CTV). This study assessed whether the use of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and strict bladder preparation allowed for a reduced planning target volume (PTV) expansion, resulting in lower doses to surrounding organs at risk (OARs). METHODS: Daily CBCT images for 12 patients (382 scans total) were retrospectively reviewed against four potential PTV margins created on and exported with the reference CT scan. To form the PTVs, three isotropic expansions of 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 cm were applied to the CTV, as well as an anisotropic expansion of 1.5 cm superiorly and 1.0 cm in all other dimensions. Following treatment completion, the CBCTs were visually assessed to determine the margins encapsulating the bladder. For retrospective planning purposes, the 1.0‐cm and anisotropic margins were compared with the previously recommended margins to determine differences in OAR doses. RESULTS: The 0.5‐, 1.0‐ and 1.5‐cm isotropic margins (IM) and the anisotropic margin (ANIM) covered the CTV in 46.1, 96.8, 100 and 100% of CBCTs retrospectively. Doses to OARs were significantly lower for the reduced margin plans for the small bowel, rectum and sigmoid. CONCLUSION: Bladder planning target volumes may be safely reduced. We endorse a PTV margin of 1.0cm anteriorly, posteriorly and inferiorly with 1.0–1.5 cm superiorly for radical whole bladder cases using strict bladder preparation, VMAT and pretreatment CBCTs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8656189 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86561892021-12-20 Retrospective evaluation of planning margins for patients undergoing radical radiation therapy treatment for bladder cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and cone beam computed tomography Dower, Kathleene Ford, Andriana Sandford, Michael Doherty, Andrew Greenham, Stuart Kerin, Luke Dwyer, Patrick Hansen, Carmen Westhuyzen, Justin Shakespeare, Thomas J Med Radiat Sci Original Articles INTRODUCTION: Current contouring guidelines for curative radiation therapy for muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) recommend margins of 1.5–2.0 cm, applied to the clinical target volume (CTV). This study assessed whether the use of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and strict bladder preparation allowed for a reduced planning target volume (PTV) expansion, resulting in lower doses to surrounding organs at risk (OARs). METHODS: Daily CBCT images for 12 patients (382 scans total) were retrospectively reviewed against four potential PTV margins created on and exported with the reference CT scan. To form the PTVs, three isotropic expansions of 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 cm were applied to the CTV, as well as an anisotropic expansion of 1.5 cm superiorly and 1.0 cm in all other dimensions. Following treatment completion, the CBCTs were visually assessed to determine the margins encapsulating the bladder. For retrospective planning purposes, the 1.0‐cm and anisotropic margins were compared with the previously recommended margins to determine differences in OAR doses. RESULTS: The 0.5‐, 1.0‐ and 1.5‐cm isotropic margins (IM) and the anisotropic margin (ANIM) covered the CTV in 46.1, 96.8, 100 and 100% of CBCTs retrospectively. Doses to OARs were significantly lower for the reduced margin plans for the small bowel, rectum and sigmoid. CONCLUSION: Bladder planning target volumes may be safely reduced. We endorse a PTV margin of 1.0cm anteriorly, posteriorly and inferiorly with 1.0–1.5 cm superiorly for radical whole bladder cases using strict bladder preparation, VMAT and pretreatment CBCTs. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-07-20 2021-12 /pmc/articles/PMC8656189/ /pubmed/34288566 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.532 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Australian Society of Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy and New Zealand Institute of Medical Radiation Technology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Dower, Kathleene Ford, Andriana Sandford, Michael Doherty, Andrew Greenham, Stuart Kerin, Luke Dwyer, Patrick Hansen, Carmen Westhuyzen, Justin Shakespeare, Thomas Retrospective evaluation of planning margins for patients undergoing radical radiation therapy treatment for bladder cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and cone beam computed tomography |
title | Retrospective evaluation of planning margins for patients undergoing radical radiation therapy treatment for bladder cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and cone beam computed tomography |
title_full | Retrospective evaluation of planning margins for patients undergoing radical radiation therapy treatment for bladder cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and cone beam computed tomography |
title_fullStr | Retrospective evaluation of planning margins for patients undergoing radical radiation therapy treatment for bladder cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and cone beam computed tomography |
title_full_unstemmed | Retrospective evaluation of planning margins for patients undergoing radical radiation therapy treatment for bladder cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and cone beam computed tomography |
title_short | Retrospective evaluation of planning margins for patients undergoing radical radiation therapy treatment for bladder cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and cone beam computed tomography |
title_sort | retrospective evaluation of planning margins for patients undergoing radical radiation therapy treatment for bladder cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and cone beam computed tomography |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8656189/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34288566 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.532 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dowerkathleene retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography AT fordandriana retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography AT sandfordmichael retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography AT dohertyandrew retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography AT greenhamstuart retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography AT kerinluke retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography AT dwyerpatrick retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography AT hansencarmen retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography AT westhuyzenjustin retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography AT shakespearethomas retrospectiveevaluationofplanningmarginsforpatientsundergoingradicalradiationtherapytreatmentforbladdercancerusingvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandconebeamcomputedtomography |