• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.171-178
• /
• 2016

Purpose : In order to minimize the dose of femoral head as an appropriate treatment plan for rectal cancer radiation therapy, we compare and evaluate the usefulness of 3-field 3D conformal radiation therapy(below 3fCRT), which is a universal treatment method, and 5-field 3D conformal radiation therapy(below 5fCRT), and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). Materials and Methods : The 10 cases of rectal cancer that treated with 21EX were enrolled. Those cases were planned by Eclipse(Ver. 10.0.42, Varian, USA), PRO3(Progressive Resolution Optimizer 10.0.28) and AAA(Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm Ver. 10.0.28). 3fCRT and 5fCRT plan has $0^{\circ}$, $270^{\circ}$, $90^{\circ}$ and $0^{\circ}$, $95^{\circ}$, $45^{\circ}$, $315^{\circ}$, $265^{\circ}$ gantry angle, respectively. VMAT plan parameters consisted of 15MV coplanar $360^{\circ}$ 1 arac. Treatment prescription was employed delivering 54Gy to recum in 30 fractions. To minimize the dose difference that shows up randomly on optimizing, VMAT plans were optimized and calculated twice, and normalized to the target V100%=95%. The indexes of evaluation are D of Both femoral head and aceta fossa, total MU, H.I.(Homogeneity index) and C.I.(Conformity index) of the PTV. All VMAT plans were verified by gamma test with portal dosimetry using EPID. Results : D of Rt. femoral head was 53.08 Gy, 50.27 Gy, and 30.92 Gy, respectively, in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. Likewise, Lt. Femoral head showed average 53.68 Gy, 51.01 Gy and 29.23 Gy in the same order. D of Rt. aceta fossa was 54.86 Gy, 52.40 Gy, 30.37 Gy, respectively, in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. Likewise, Lt. Femoral head showed average 53.68 Gy, 51.01 Gy and 29.23 Gy in the same order. The maximum dose of both femoral head and aceta fossa was higher in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. C.I. showed the lowest VMAT treatment plan with an average of 1.64, 1.48, and 0.99 in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. There was no significant difference on H.I. of the PTV among three plans. Total MU showed that the VMAT treatment plan used 124.4MU and 299MU more than the 3fCRT and 5fCRT treatment plan, respectively. IMRT verification gamma test results for the VMAT plan passed over 90.0% at 2mm/2%. Conclusion : In rectal cancer treatment, the VMAT plan was shown to be advantageous in most of the evaluation indexes compared to the 3D plan, and the dose of the femoral head was greatly reduced. However, because of practical limitations there may be a case where it is difficult to select a VMAT treatment plan. 5fCRT has the advantage of reducing the dose of the femoral head as compared to the existing 3fCRT, without regard to additional problems. Therefore, not only would it extend survival time but the quality of life in general, if hospitals improved radiation therapy efficiency by selecting the treatment plan in accordance with the hospital's situation.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.143-156
• /
• 2005

Background: The best dose-fractionation regimen of the definitive radiotherapy for cervix cancer remains to be clearly determined. It seems to be partially attributed to the complexity of the affecting factors and the lack of detailed information on external and intra-cavitary fractionation. To find optimal practice guidelines, our experiences of the combination of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and high-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy (HDR-ICBT) were reviewed with detailed information of the various treatment parameters obtained from a large cohort of women treated homogeneously at a single institute. Materials and Methods: The subjects were 743 cervical cancer patients (Stage IB 198, IIA 77, IIB 364, IIIA 7, IIIB 89 and IVA 8) treated by radiotherapy alone, between 1990 and 1996. A total external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) dose of $23.4\~59.4$ Gy (Median 45.0) was delivered to the whole pelvis. High-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy (HDR-IBT) was also peformed using various fractionation schemes. A Midline block (MLB) was initiated after the delivery of $14.4\~43.2$ Gy (Median 36.0) of EBRT in 495 patients, while In the other 248 patients EBRT could not be used due to slow tumor regression or the huge initial bulk of tumor. The point A, actual bladder & rectal doses were individually assessed in all patients. The biologically effective dose (BED) to the tumor ($\alpha/\beta$=10) and late-responding tissues ($\alpha/\beta$=3) for both EBRT and HDR-ICBT were calculated. The total BED values to point A, the actual bladder and rectal reference points were the summation of the EBRT and HDR-ICBT. In addition to all the details on dose-fractionation, the other factors (i.e. the overall treatment time, physicians preference) that can affect the schedule of the definitive radiotherapy were also thoroughly analyzed. The association between MD-BED $Gy_3$ and the risk of complication was assessed using serial multiple logistic regression models. The associations between R-BED $Gy_3$ and rectal complications and between V-BED $Gy_3$ and bladder complications were assessed using multiple logistic regression models after adjustment for age, stage, tumor size and treatment duration. Serial Coxs proportional hazard regression models were used to estimate the relative risks of recurrence due to MD-BED $Gy_{10}$, and the treatment duration. Results: The overall complication rate for RTOG Grades $1\~4$ toxicities was $33.1\%$. The 5-year actuarial pelvic control rate for ail 743 patients was $83\%$. The midline cumulative BED dose, which is the sum of external midline BED and HDR-ICBT point A BED, ranged from 62.0 to 121.9 $Gy_{10}$ (median 93.0) for tumors and from 93.6 to 187.3 $Gy_3$ (median 137.6) for late responding tissues. The median cumulative values of actual rectal (R-BED $Gy_3$) and bladder Point BED (V-BED $Gy_3$) were 118.7 $Gy_3$ (range $48.8\~265.2$) and 126.1 $Gy_3$ (range: $54.9\~267.5$), respectively. MD-BED $Gy_3$ showed a good correlation with rectal (p=0.003), but not with bladder complications (p=0.095). R-BED $Gy_3$ had a very strong association (p=<0.0001), and was more predictive of rectal complications than A-BED $Gy_3$. B-BED $Gy_3$ also showed significance in the prediction of bladder complications in a trend test (p=0.0298). No statistically significant dose-response relationship for pelvic control was observed. The Sandwich and Continuous techniques, which differ according to when the ICR was inserted during the EBRT and due to the physicians preference, showed no differences in the local control and complication rates; there were also no differences in the 3 vs. 5 Gy fraction size of HDR-ICBT. Conclusion: The main reasons optimal dose-fractionation guidelines are not easily established is due to the absence of a dose-response relationship for tumor control as a result of the high-dose gradient of HDR-ICBT, individual differences In tumor responses to radiation therapy and the complexity of affecting factors. Therefore, in our opinion, there is a necessity for individualized tailored therapy, along with general guidelines, in the definitive radiation treatment for cervix cancer. This study also demonstrated the strong predictive value of actual rectal and bladder reference dosing therefore, vaginal gauze packing might be very Important. To maintain the BED dose to less than the threshold resulting in complication, early midline shielding, the HDR-ICBT total dose and fractional dose reduction should be considered.