Radiotherapy Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about Radiotherapy, including details on cancer treatment, side effects. | ||||||||
|
Dosimetric and toxicity comparison between prone and supine position IMRT for endometrial cancer.Beriwal S, Jain SK, Heron DE, de Andrade RS, Lin CJ, Kim H Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. beriwals@upmc.edu PURPOSE: To determine the dosimetric and toxicity differences between prone and supine position intensity-modulate radiotherapy in endometrial cancer patients treated with adjuvant radiotherapy. METHODS: Forty-seven consecutive endometrial cancer patients treated with adjuvant RT were analyzed. Of these, 21 were treated in prone position and 26 in the supine position. Dose-volume histograms for normal tissue structures and targets were compared between the two groups. Acute and chronic toxicity were also compared between the cohorts. RESULTS: The percentage of volume receiving 10, 20, 30, 40, 45, and 50 Gy for small bowel was 89.5%, 69%, 33%, 12.2%, 5%, and 0% in the prone group and 87.5%, 62.7%, 26.4%, 8%, 4.3%, and 0% in the supine group, respectively. The difference was not statistically significant. The dose-volume histograms for bladder and rectum were also comparable, except for a slightly greater percentage of volume receiving 10 Gy (1.5%) and 20 Gy (5%) for the rectum in the prone group. Acute small bowel toxicities were Grade 1 in 7 patients and Grade 2 in 14 patients in the prone group vs. Grade 1 in 6 patients and Grade 2 in 19 patients in the supine group. Chronic toxicity was Grade 1 in 7 patients and Grade 3 in 1 patient in the prone group and Grade 1 in 5 patients in the supine group. CONCLUSION: These preliminary results suggest that no difference exists in the dose to the normal tissue and toxicity between prone and supine intensity-modulated radiotherapy for endometrial cancer. Longer follow-up and more outcome studies are needed to determine whether any differences exist between the two approaches. Published 22 January 2007 in Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 67(2): 485-9.
© 2004-2008 Radiotherapy Research Today. All Rights Reserved. |
| ||||||
