4.7 Article

Dose-volume histogram evaluation of prone and supine patient position in external beam radiotherapy for cervical and endometrial cancer

Journal

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
Volume 69, Issue 1, Pages 99-105

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-8140(03)00244-5

Keywords

cervical cancer; endometrial cancer; radiotherapy; treatment planning

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and purpose: To evaluate the influence of patient positioning on dose-volume histograms of organs at risk in external beam radiotherapy for cervical and endometrial cancer. Materials and methods: In 20 patients scheduled for definitive (7) or postoperative (13) external beam radiotherapy of the pelvis treatment planning CT scans were performed in supine and prone (belly board) positions. After volume definition of target and organs at risk treatment plans were calculated applying the four-field box technique. The dose-volume histograms of organs at risk were compared. Results: Radiotherapy in prone position causes a reduction of the bladder portion (mean 15%, p < 0.001) and an increase of the rectum portion (mean 15%, p < 0.001) within the 90% isodose. A reduction of the bowel portion Could only be observed in postoperatively treated patients (mean 13%, p < 0.001). In definitive radiotherapy the target volume increases in supine position (mean 7%, p = 0.02) due to an anterior tumour/uterus movement, so that bowel portions within the 90% isodose are similar. The bladder filling correlates with a reduction of bladder and bowel (postoperatively treated patients) dose. Conclusions: External beam radiotherapy of the pelvis should be performed in prone position in postoperative patients because of best bowel protection. Considering the additional HDR brachytherapy rectum protection takes the highest priority in definitive treatment-the requirements are best met in supine position. An adequate bladder filling is important to reduce the irradiated bladder and bowel Volumes. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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