4.7 Article

RECTAL DOSE AND SOURCE STRENGTH OF THE HIGH-DOSE-RATE IRIDIUM-192 BOTH AFFECT LATE RECTAL BLEEDING AFTER INTRACAVITARY RADIATION THERAPY FOR UTERINE CERVICAL CARCINOMA

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.05.030

关键词

High-dose rate; Intracavitary brachytherapy; Late rectal complications; Source strength; (192)Ir

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to reconfirm our previous findings that the rectal dose and source strength both affect late rectal bleeding after high-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy (HDR-ICBT), by using a rectal dose calculated in accordance with the definitions of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements Report 38 (ICRU(RP)) or of dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters by the Groupe Europeen de Curietherapie of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology. Methods and Materials: Sixty-two patients who underwent HDR-ICBT and were followed up for 1 year or more were studied. The rectal dose for ICBT was calculated by using the ICRP(RP) based on orthogonal radiographs or the DVH parameters based on computed tomography (CT). The total dose was calculated as the biologically equivalent dose expressed in 2-Gy fractions (EQD(2)). The relationship between averaged source strength or the EQD(2) and late rectal bleeding was then analyzed. Results: When patients were divided into four groups according to rectal EQD(2) (>= or = or <2.4 cGy.m(2).h(-1)), the group with both a high EQD(2) and a high source strength showed a significantly greater probability of rectal bleeding for ICRU(RP), D(2cc), and D(1cc). The patients with a median rectal dose above the threshold level did not show a greater frequency of rectal bleeding unless the source strength exceeded 2.4 cGy.m(2).h(-1). Conclusions: Our results obtained with data based on ICRU(RP) and CT-based DVH parameters indicate that rectal dose and source strength both affect rectal bleeding after HDR-ICBT. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据