|
KMID : 0364920070320030105
|
|
Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
2007 Volume.32 No. 3 p.105 ~ p.110
|
|
|
Comparison of CT based-CTV plan and CT based-ICRU38 plan in Brachytherapy Planning of Uterine Cervix Cancer
|
|
Cho Jung-Keun
Han Tae-Jong
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Purpose : In spite of recent remarkable improvement of diagnostic imaging modalities such as CT, MRI, and PET and radiation therapy planing systems, ICR plan of uterine cervix cancer, based on recommendation of ICRU38(2D film-based) such as Point A, is still used widely. A 3-dimensional ICR plan based on CT image provides dose-volume histogram(DVH) information of the tumor and normal tissue. In this study, we compared tumor-dose, rectal-dose and bladder-dose through an analysis of DVH between CTV plan and ICRU38 plan based on CT image.
Method and Material : We analyzed 11 patients with a cervix cancer who received the ICR of Ir-192 HDR. After 40Gy of external beam radiation therapy, ICR plan was established using PLATO(Nucletron) v.14.2 planing system. CT scan was done to all the patients using CT-simulator(Ultra Z, Philips). We contoured CTV, rectum and bladder on the CT image and established CTV plan which delivers the 100% dose to CTV and ICRU plan which delivers the 100% dose to the point A.
Result : The volume$(average{\pm}SD)$ of CTV, rectum and bladder in all of 11 patients is $21.8{\pm}6.6cm^3,\;60.9{\pm}25.0cm^3,\;111.6{\pm}40.1cm^3$ respectively. The volume covered by 100% isodose curve is $126.7{\pm}18.9cm^3$ in ICRU plan and $98.2{\pm}74.5cm^3$ in CTV plan(p=0.0001), respectively. In (On) ICRU planning, $22.0cm^3$ of CTV volume was not covered by 100% isodose curve in one patient whose residual tumor size is greater than 4cm, while more than 100% dose was irradiated unnecessarily to the normal organ of $62.2{\pm}4.8cm^3$ other than the tumor in the remaining 10 patients with a residual tumor less than 4cm in size. Bladder dose recommended by ICRU 38 was $90.1{\pm}21.3%$ and $68.7{\pm}26.6%$ in ICRU plan and in CTV plan respectively(p=0.001) while rectal dose recommended by ICRU 38 was $86.4{\pm}18.3%$ and $76.9{\pm}15.6%$ in ICRU plan and in CTV plan, respectively(p=0.08). Bladder and rectum maximum dose was $137.2{\pm}50.1%,\;101.1{\pm}41.8%$ in ICRU plan and $107.6{\pm}47.9%,\;86.9{\pm}30.8%$ in CTV plan, respectively. Therefore, the radiation dose to normal organ was lower in CTV plan than in ICRU plan. But the normal tissue dose was remarkably higher than a recommended dose in CTV plan in one patient whose residual tumor size was greater than 4cm. The volume of rectum receiving more than 80% isodose (V80rec) was $1.8{\pm}2.4cm^3$ in ICRU plan and $0.7{\pm}1.0cm^3$ in CTV plan(p=0.02). The volume of bladder receiving more than 80% isodose(V80bla) was $12.2{\pm}8.9cm^3$ in ICRU plan and $3.5{\pm}4.1cm^3$ in CTV plan(p=0.005). According to these parameters, CTV plan could also save more normal tissue compared to ICRU38 plan.
Conclusion : An unnecessary excessive radiation dose is irradiated to normal tissues within 100% isodose area in the traditional ICRU plan in case of a small size of cervix cancer, but if we use CTV plan based on CT image, the normal tissue dose could be reduced remarkably without a compromise of tumor dose. However, in a large tumor case, we need more research on an effective 3D-planing to reduce the normal tissue dose.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Uterine cervix cancer, Intracavitary radiotherapy, Clinical target volume
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|