4.7 Article

Daily variations in delivered doses in patients treated with radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.06.011

Keywords

prostate; External Irradiation; daily dose recalculation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The aim of this work was to study the variations in delivered doses to the prostate, rectum, and bladder during a full course of image-guided external beam radiotherapy. Methods and Materials: Ten patients with localized prostate cancer were treated with helical tomotherapy to 78 Gy at 2 Gy per fraction in 39 fractions. Daily target localization was performed using intraprostatic fiducials and daily megavoltage pelvic computed tomography (CT) scans, resulting in a total of 390 CT scans. The prostate, rectum, and bladder were manually contoured on each CT by a single physician. Daily dosimetric analysis was performed with dose recalculation. The study endpoints were D95 (dose to 95% of the prostate), rV2 (absolute rectal volume receiving 2 Gy), and bV2 (absolute bladder volume receiving 2 Gy). Results: For the entire cohort, the average D95 (+/- SD) was 2.02 +/- 0.04 Gy (range, 1.79-2.20 Gy). The average rV-2(+/- SD) was 7.0 +/- 8.1 cc (range, 0.1-67.3 cc). The average bV2 ( SD) was 8.7 +/- 6.8 cc (range, 0.3-36.8 cc). Unlike doses for the prostate, there was significant daily variation in rectal and bladder doses, mostly because of variations in volume and shape of these organs. Conclusion: Large variations in delivered doses to the rectum and bladder can be documented with daily megavoltage CT scans. Image guidance for the targeting of the prostate, even with intraprostatic fiducials, does not take into account the variation in actual rectal and bladder doses. The clinical impact of techniques that take into account such dosimetric parameters in daily patient set-ups should be investigated. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available