• Childhood Kidney Diseases
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.51-58
• /
• 2001

Purpose : Treatment of primary nocturnal enuresis (PNE) includs folk remedies and various treatments based on pathogenesis. We assessed the therapeutic effect of nocturnal water restrict ion as the primary treatment of PNE. Materials and methods : From October 1998 to June 1999, 41 children with PNE (>3 wet nights per week) who visited Ewha Womans University Mokdong hospital and who had good compliances to nocturnal water restriction for 2 months were included. Before and during nocturnal water restriction, daily fluid intake and urine volume were recorded for 2 days every 2 weeks. Responses to nocturnal water restriction were classified according to the decrease of wet nights as complete (>90$\%$), partial (50-90$\%$) and no (<50$\%$) response. Predictors such as age, sex, daytime voiding dysfunction, fluid intake, urine volume, maximum urine volume per void and fasting urine osmolality were evaluated. Results . The response rate to nocturnal water restriction fir 2 month was 82.9$\%$(34/41) [complete response 39.0$\%$(16/41), partial response : 43.9$\%$(18/41)]. The response rate to nocturnal water restriction was significantly higher in monosymptomatic PNE than polysymptomatic PNE and more effective in PNE with or nocturnal fluid intake, nocturnal urine volume, and maximum urine volume than lower nocturnal fluid intake, nocturnal urine volume and maximum urine volume per void (P<0.05). Nocturnal urine volume, maximum urine volume per void and luting urine osmolality after nocturnal water restriction has significantly increased higher in complete response and partial response group than in no response group (P<0.05). Conclusion : The nocturnal water restriction was effective in monosymptomatic PNE with nocturnal polydypsia, nocturnal polyuria and high bladder capacity. (J, Korean Soc Pediatr Nephrol 5 : 51- 8, 2001)

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.145-156
• /
• 2015

Purpose : The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficiency of Split VMAT planning(Contouring rectum divided into an upper and a lower for reduce rectum dose) compare to Conventional VMAT planning(Contouring whole rectum) for prostate cancer radiotherapy involving pelvic lymph nodes. Materials and Methods : A total of 9 cases were enrolled. Each case received radiotherapy with Split VMAT planning to the prostate involving pelvic lymph nodes. Treatment was delivered using TrueBeam STX(Varian Medical Systems, USA) and planned on Eclipse(Ver. 10.0.42, Varian, USA), PRO3(Progressive Resolution Optimizer 10.0.28), AAA(Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm Ver. 10.0.28). Lower rectum contour was defined as starting 1cm superior and ending 1cm inferior to the prostate PTV, upper rectum is a part, except lower rectum from the whole rectum. Split VMAT plan parameters consisted of 10MV coplanar $360^{\circ}$ arcs. Each arc had $30^{\circ}$ and $30^{\circ}$ collimator angle, respectively. An SIB(Simultaneous Integrated Boost) treatment prescription was employed delivering 50.4Gy to pelvic lymph nodes and 63~70Gy to the prostate in 28 fractions. $D_{mean}$ of whole rectum on Split VMAT plan was applied for DVC(Dose Volume Constraint) of the whole rectum for Conventional VMAT plan. In addition, all parameters were set to be the same of existing treatment plans. To minimize the dose difference that shows up randomly on optimizing, all plans were optimized and calculated twice respectively using a 0.2cm grid. All plans were normalized to the prostate $PTV_{100%}$ = 90% or 95%. A comparison of $D_{mean}$ of whole rectum, upperr ectum, lower rectum, and bladder, $V_{50%}$ of upper rectum, total MU and H.I.(Homogeneity Index) and C.I.(Conformity Index) of the PTV was used for technique evaluation. All Split VMAT plans were verified by gamma test with portal dosimetry using EPID. Results : Using DVH analysis, a difference between the Conventional and the Split VMAT plans was demonstrated. The Split VMAT plan demonstrated better in the $D_{mean}$ of whole rectum, Up to 134.4 cGy, at least 43.5 cGy, the average difference was 75.6 cGy and in the $D_{mean}$ of upper rectum, Up to 1113.5 cGy, at least 87.2 cGy, the average difference was 550.5 cGy and in the $D_{mean}$ of lower rectum, Up to 100.5 cGy, at least -34.6 cGy, the average difference was 34.3 cGy and in the $D_{mean}$ of bladder, Up to 271 cGy, at least -55.5 cGy, the average difference was 117.8 cGy and in $V_{50%}$ of upper rectum, Up to 63.4%, at least 3.2%, the average difference was 23.2%. There was no significant difference on H.I., and C.I. of the PTV among two plans. The Split VMAT plan is average 77 MU more than another. All IMRT verification gamma test results for the Split VMAT plan passed over 90.0% at 2 mm / 2%. Conclusion : As a result, the Split VMAT plan appeared to be more favorable in most cases than the Conventional VMAT plan for prostate cancer radiotherapy involving pelvic lymph nodes. By using the split VMAT planning technique it was possible to reduce the upper rectum dose, thus reducing whole rectal dose when compared to conventional VMAT planning. Also using the split VMAT planning technique increase the treatment efficiency.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.32
• /
• pp.17-29
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The purpose of this work was to investigate the dosimetric impact of mixed energy partial arc technique on prostate cancer VMAT. Materials and Methods: This study involved prostate only patients planned with 70Gy in 30 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV). Femoral heads, Bladder and Rectum were considered as oragan at risk (OARs). For this study, mixed energy partial arcs (MEPA) were generated with gantry angle set to 180°~230°, 310°~50° for 6MV arc and 130°~50°, 310°~230° for 15MV arc. Each arc set the avoidance sector which is gantry angle 230°~310°, 50°~130° at first arc and 50°~310° at second arc. After that, two plans were summed and were analyzed the dosimetry parameter of each structure such as Maximum dose, Mean dose, D2%, Homogeneity index (HI) and Conformity Index (CI) for PTV and Maximum dose, Mean dose, V70Gy, V50Gy, V30Gy, and V20Gy for OARs and Monitor Unit (MU) with 6MV 1 ARC, 6MV, 10MV, 15MV 2 ARC plan. Results: In MEPA, the maximum dose, mean dose and D2% were lower than 6MV 1 ARC plan(p<0.0005). However, the average difference of maximum dose was 0.24%, 0.39%, 0.60% (p<0.450, 0.321, 0.139) higher than 6MV, 10MV, 15MV 2 ARC plan, respectively and D2% was 0.42%, 0.49%, 0.59% (p<0.073, 0.087, 0.033) higher than compared plans. The average difference of mean dose was 0.09% lower than 10MV 2 ARC plan, but it is 0.27%, 0.12% (p<0.184, 0.521) higher than 6MV 2 ARC, 15MV 2 ARC plan, respectively. HI was 0.064±0.006 which is the lowest value (p<0.005, 0.357, 0.273, 0.801) among the all plans. For CI, there was no significant differences which were 1.12±0.038 in MEPA, 1.12±0.036, 1.11±0.024, 1.11±0.030, 1.12±0.027 in 6MV 1 ARC, 6MV, 10MV, 15MV 2 ARC, respectively. MEPA produced significantly lower rectum dose. Especially, V70Gy, V50Gy, V30Gy, V20Gy were 3.40, 16.79, 37.86, 48.09 that were lower than other plans. For bladder dose, V30Gy, V20Gy were lower than other plans. However, the mean dose of both femoral head were 9.69±2.93, 9.88±2.5 which were 2.8Gy~3.28Gy higher than other plans. The mean MU of MEPA were 19.53% lower than 6MV 1 ARC, 5.7% lower than 10MV 2 ARC respectively. Conclusion: This study for prostate radiotherapy demonstrated that a choice of MEPA VMAT has the potential to minimize doses to OARs and improve homogeneity to PTV at the expense of a moderate increase in maximum and mean dose to the femoral heads.