4.7 Article

Simple DVH parameter addition as compared to deformable registration for bladder dose accumulation in cervix cancer brachytherapy

期刊

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
卷 107, 期 1, 页码 52-57

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.01.013

关键词

Cervix cancer; Brachytherapy; Bladder; Dose evaluation; Uncertainty

资金

  1. CIRRO - The Lundbeck Foundation Center for Interventional Research in Radiation Oncology
  2. Danish Cancer Society
  3. Danish Council for Strategic Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: Variations in organ position, shape, and volume cause uncertainties in dose assessment for brachytherapy (BT) in cervix cancer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate uncertainties associated with bladder dose accumulation based on DVH parameter addition (previously called the worst case assumption) in fractionated BT. Materials and methods: Forty-seven patients treated for locally advanced cervical cancer were included. All patients received EBRT combined with two individually planned 3D image-guided adaptive BT fractions. D-2cm3 and D-01cm3 were estimated by DVH parameter addition and compared to dose accumulations based on an in-house developed biomechanical deformable image registration (DIR) algorithm. Results: DIR-based DVH analysis was possible in 42/47 patients. DVH parameter addition resulted in mean dose deviations relative to DIR of 0.4 +/- 0.3 Gy(alpha beta 3) (1.5 +/- 1.8%) and 1.9 +/- 1.6 Gy(alpha beta 3) (5.2 +/- 4.2%) for D-2cm3 and D-01cm3, respectively. Dose deviations greater than 5% occurred in 2% and 38% of the patients for D-2cm3, and D-0.1cm3, respectively. Visual inspection of the dose distributions showed that hotspots were located in the same region of the bladder during both BT fractions for the majority of patients. Conclusion: DVH parameter addition provides a good estimate for D-2cm3, whereas D-0.1cm3 is less robust to this approximation. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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