These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Intensity modulated proton beam radiation for brachytherapy in patients with cervical carcinoma.
    Author: Clivio A, Kluge A, Cozzi L, Köhler C, Neumann O, Vanetti E, Wlodarczyk W, Marnitz S.
    Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2013 Dec 01; 87(5):897-903. PubMed ID: 24119834.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To evaluate intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in patients with cervical cancer in terms of coverage, conformity, and dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters correlated with recommendations from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eleven patients with histologically proven cervical cancer underwent primary chemoradiation for the pelvic lymph nodes, the uterus, the cervix, and the parametric region, with a symmetric margin of 1 cm. The prescription was for 50.4 Gy, with 1.8 Gy per fraction. The prescribed dose to the parametria was 2.12 Gy up to 59.36 Gy in 28 fractions as a simultaneous boost. For several reasons, the patients were unable to undergo brachytherapy. As an alternative, IMPT was planned with 5 fractions of 6 Gy to the cervix, including the macroscopic tumor with an MRI-guided target definition, with an isotropic margin of 5 mm for planning target volume (PTV) definition. Groupe-Europeen de Curietherapie and European society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) criteria were used for DVH evaluation. Reference comparison plans were optimized for volumetric modulated rapid arc (VMAT) therapy with the RapidArc (RA). RESULTS: The dose to the high-risk volume was calculated with α/β = 10 with 89.6 Gy. For IMPT, the clinical target volume showed a mean dose of 38.2 ± 5.0 Gy (35.0 ±1.8 Gy for RA). The D98% was 31.9 ± 2.6 Gy (RA: 30.8 ± 1.0 Gy). With regard to the organs at risk, the 2Gy Equivalent Dose (EQD2) (α/β = 3) to 2 cm(3) of the rectal wall, sigmoid wall, and bladder wall was 62.2 ± 6.4 Gy, 57.8 ± 6.1 Gy, and 80.6 ± 8.7 Gy (for RA: 75.3 ± 6.1 Gy, 66.9 ± 6.9 Gy, and 89.0 ± 7.2 Gy, respectively). For the IMPT boost plans in combination with external beam radiation therapy, all DVH parameters correlated with <5% risk for grades 2 to 4 late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity. CONCLUSION: In patients who are not eligible for brachytherapy, IMPT as a boost technique additionally to external beam radiation therapy provides good target coverage and conformity and superior DVH parameters, compared with recommendations to MRI-guided brachytherapy. For selected patients, IMPT might be a valid alternative to brachytherapy and also superior to reference VMAT plans.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]