RESUMO
Objective To compare the effect between the supine and prone patient positions upon target dose coverage during intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for rectal cancer, aiming to provide clinical reference for the selection of position for rectal cancer patients. Methods Twenty-four patients diagnosed with rectal cancer receiving postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy were selected and divided into the supine (n=12) and prone position groups(n=12). Before and during the IMRT(1-4 weeks),all patients received CT scans, which were defined as:Plan,1W,2W,3W and 4W,respectively. The organs at risk were delineated based on CT scan images. Plan,1W, 2W, 3W and 4W CT scan images were fused. The CTV and PTV from Plan CT scan were copied to the 1-4W CT scan images,and the therapeutic plans from Plan CT scan were copied as well. The target dose coverage was assessed and the failure rate of target dose coverage was calculated. The couch-position data for each patient during each cycle of IMRT were recorded by using the MOSAIQ network and the overall deviation (S) of couch position was calculated. Results The failure rates of CTV and PTV target dose coverage in the prone position group were higher than those in the supine position group (18.60% VS 0%, 69.76% VS 53.65%).The S value was significantly correlated with the target dose coverage (r=-0.683,P=0.000). The S value in the prone position group was(1.23±0.76) cm,significantly greater than(0.28±0.18) cm in the supine position (P=0.001),and the most significant deviation was noted in the y (head and foot) and z (frontal and dorsal) directions (P=0.003 and 0.003). Compared with the supine group,the V5and V10 of the small intestine were significantly less (P=0.003 and 0.004) and the chronic toxicity (NTCPC) was considerably reduced(P=0.041) in the prone position group. Conclusions A better target dose coverage can be maintained during IMRT with a supine position during rectal cancer IMRT, whereas the positioning repeatability is worsened with a prone position due to use of the belly board, thereby affecting the target dose coverage. Although the prone position combined with belly board can reduce the tolerated dosage of the small intestine,effective measures should be taken to guarantee the patient positioning repeatability.
RESUMO
Objective To compare the dose volume and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of small intestine between intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with dose constraints to the peritoneal space (PS) and the bowel loop (BL) in the treatment of rectal cancer,and to investigate the feasibility of placing a dose constraint to the PS instead of the BL in protection of the small intestine.Methods A total of 24 patients with rectal cancer undergoing postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy were enrolled as subjects.In the 24 patients,12 were treated in supine position an.d 12 in prone position.The weekly computed tomography (CT) scans from pre-treatment to weeks 1-4 of treatment were defined as Plan,1 W,2 W,3 W,and 4 W.Contours of PS and BL were delineated on all CT images.Based on the Plan CT images,two IMRT plans,PPS and PBL,were designed with dose constraints to the PS and BL,respectively.The method was applied to 1-4 W CT images.For each CT scan,the dose volume and NTCP of the small intestine were evaluated in PPs and PBL.Results A total of 109 sets of CT images were acquired from 24 patients,and 218 plans were designed and copied.The median volume of the PS and BL was 1339.28 and 250.27 cm3,respectively.For the Plan CT scans,V15 values of the PS in PPs plan and the BL in PBL plan were 918.96 and 199.57 em3,respectively.For all CT scans,the dose volume of the small intestine in PPs,in most cases,was lower than that in PBL,while V15 values in Ps and PBL were 170.07 and 178.58 cm3 (P=0.000).The dose volume of the small intestine was correlated with V15 (P=0.000).PPs had significantly lower NTCP of chronic and acute adverse reactions than PBL(2.80％ vs.3.00％,P=0.018;57.32％ vs.58.64％,P=0.000).In patients with prone and supine treatment positions,most of the dose volume and NTCP of the small intestine in Ps were significantly lower than those in PBL(P＜0.05 for V10,V15,V30,and NTCP of acute adverse reactions).Conclusions It is feasible to place a dose constraint to the PS instead of the BL for protection of the small intestine during IMRT for rectal cancer.V15＜830 cm3 can be referred to as the objective function of dose restraint.
RESUMO
Objective To evaluate the uncertainty of the small bowel dose?volume and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) during intensity?modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for rectal cancer, and to provide a reference for the dose limit and protection of the small bowel during IMRT for rectal cancer. Methods A total of 20 patients with rectal cancer who received postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy from March 2014 to August 2015 were enrolled in this study, including 10 patients receiving CT scan in the supine position and 10 patients in the prone position. All patients received computed tomography ( CT) scan before the treatment and at weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4 of treatment, and they were defined as Plan, 1W, 2W, 3W, and 4W CT groups, respectively. The small bowel loop ( BL ) and peritoneal space ( PS ) were delineated on the images. The IMRT plan based on the Plan CT was copied to the 1W, 2W, 3W, and 4W CT groups, and then the small bowel dose?volume and NTCP were assessed for all CT groups. The paired t?test was used for comparison between groups. The Pearson method was used to analyze the correlation between NTCPC(chronic NTCP) and dose?volume. Results A total of 89 CT images of 20 patients were obtained. In all the patients, the volumes of BL and PS were 25121 cm3 and 132416 cm3 , respectively, and the shift% was 2315% and 1134%, respectively. The V15 of BL and PS was 18486 cm3 and 79245 cm3 , respectively, and the shift% was 3169% and 370%, respectively. The V30 of BL and PS was 8801 cm3 and 64573 cm3 , respectively, and the shift% was 3766% and 1049%, respectively. The V15 of BL in 35% of patients and V15 of PS in 20% of patients, the Dmax of BL in 50% of patients, and the NTCP of 15% of patients in the course of treatment exceeded the safety limits. The 1?4W CT groups had a significantly higher NTCPC than the Plan CT group (402% vs. 320%, P=0104), and their SD% was 4168%. There was a significant correlation between NTCPC and V30?V50 of BL (R>0400, P=0000). The NTCPA ( acute NTCP ) and NTCP C in the supine position were significantly higher than those in the prone position ( 6230% vs. 5674%, P=0061;488% vs. 322%, P=0145 ) . Conclusions Small bowel motility leads to an uncertainty of the adverse event assessment during IMRT for rectal cancer. The change in BL is significantly larger than that in PS and the change in BL and PS in the supine position is significantly larger than that in the prone position. Using the prone position and minimizing V15 and V30 when designing the treatment plan can reduce the NTCP A and NTCP C in the small bowel.
