Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 975-980

Dosimetric comparison of different treatment planning techniques with International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements Report-83 recommendations in adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy of gynecological malignancies


1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Antalya Education and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey
2 Department of Radiation Oncology, Akdeniz University School of Medicine, Antalya, Turkey

Correspondence Address:
Evrim Duman
Department of Radiation Oncology, Antalya Education and Research Hospital, 07100, Antalya
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0973-1482.179189

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The study evaluates the different treatment planning techniques according to three recommendation levels of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements Report-83 in gynecologic cancer patients treated with adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy (APR). Materials and Methods: Computerized tomography images of ten endometrial and cervical cancer patients who were treated with APR were assessed. For each patient, five different treatment plans were created. One homogeneity index and four different conformity indexes (CIs) were calculated for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), field-in-field (FIF), seven-field intensity modulated radiotherapy (7-IMRT) with two different degrees beginning (7A-IMRT, 7B-IMRT) and 9-IMRT treatment plans. Dose volume histogram parameters and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were compared for organs at risk (OAR). Results: The CI values of the IMRT were closer to 1 with respect to other plans (P < 0.05). The rectum and the bladder volumes which received more than 40 Gy were decreased with IMRT compared to 3D-CRT (P < 0.05). Doses received by the 195 cc volume of the small intestine and NTCP values were significantly decreased with IMRT (P < 0.05). Conclusion: IMRT provided more protection than FIF plans at high dose volumes of the OAR; however, it did not show any superiority at low-dose volumes. The NTCP results supported IMRT for only small intestine protection. Because IMRT is increasingly used clinically, the comparison of NTCP will become more common in the near future. Therefore, new prospective studies with sufficient number of patients and appropriate NTCP models are needed for this treatment modality.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1889    
    Printed28    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded140    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal