Comparison of 2D and 3D imaging and treatment planning for postoperative vaginal apex high-dose rate brachytherapy for endometrial cancer

To evaluate bladder and rectal doses using two-dimensional (2D) and 3D treatment planning for vaginal cuff high-dose rate (HDR) in endometrial cancer. Ninety-one consecutive patients treated between 2000 and 2007 were evaluated. Seventy-one and 20 patients underwent 2D and 3D planning, respectively....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics Vol. 83; no. 1; p. e75
Main Authors: Russo, James K, Armeson, Kent E, Richardson, Susan
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States 01.05.2012
Subjects:
Brachytherapy - methods
Carcinoma - radiotherapy
Carcinoma - surgery
Dose Fractionation
Endometrial Neoplasms - radiotherapy
Endometrial Neoplasms - surgery
Female
Fiducial Markers
Humans
Organs at Risk - radiation effects
Postoperative Care - methods
Rectum - radiation effects
Retrospective Studies
Urinary Bladder - radiation effects
ISSN:1879-355X, 1879-355X
Online Access:Get more information
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Abstract To evaluate bladder and rectal doses using two-dimensional (2D) and 3D treatment planning for vaginal cuff high-dose rate (HDR) in endometrial cancer. Ninety-one consecutive patients treated between 2000 and 2007 were evaluated. Seventy-one and 20 patients underwent 2D and 3D planning, respectively. Each patient received six fractions prescribed at 0.5 cm to the superior 3 cm of the vagina. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) doses were calculated for 2D patients. Maximum and 2-cc doses were calculated for 3D patients. Organ doses were normalized to prescription dose. Bladder maximum doses were 178% of ICRU doses (p < 0.0001). Two-cubic centimeter doses were no different than ICRU doses (p = 0.22). Two-cubic centimeter doses were 59% of maximum doses (p < 0.0001). Rectal maximum doses were 137% of ICRU doses (p < 0.0001). Two-cubic centimeter doses were 87% of ICRU doses (p < 0.0001). Two-cubic centimeter doses were 64% of maximum doses (p < 0.0001). Using the first 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 fractions, we predicted the final bladder dose to within 10% for 44%, 59%, 83%, 82%, and 89% of patients by using the ICRU dose, and for 45%, 55%, 80%, 85%, and 85% of patients by using the maximum dose, and for 37%, 68%, 79%, 79%, and 84% of patients by using the 2-cc dose. Using the first 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 fractions, we predicted the final rectal dose to within 10% for 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, and 100% of patients by using the ICRU dose, and for 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, and 75% of patients by using the maximum dose, and for 68%, 95%, 84%, 84%, and 84% of patients by using the 2-cc dose. Doses to organs at risk vary depending on the calculation method. In some cases, final dose accuracy appears to plateau after the third fraction, indicating that simulation and planning may not be necessary in all fractions. A clinically relevant level of accuracy should be determined and further research conducted to address this issue.
AbstractList To evaluate bladder and rectal doses using two-dimensional (2D) and 3D treatment planning for vaginal cuff high-dose rate (HDR) in endometrial cancer.PURPOSETo evaluate bladder and rectal doses using two-dimensional (2D) and 3D treatment planning for vaginal cuff high-dose rate (HDR) in endometrial cancer.Ninety-one consecutive patients treated between 2000 and 2007 were evaluated. Seventy-one and 20 patients underwent 2D and 3D planning, respectively. Each patient received six fractions prescribed at 0.5 cm to the superior 3 cm of the vagina. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) doses were calculated for 2D patients. Maximum and 2-cc doses were calculated for 3D patients. Organ doses were normalized to prescription dose.METHODS AND MATERIALSNinety-one consecutive patients treated between 2000 and 2007 were evaluated. Seventy-one and 20 patients underwent 2D and 3D planning, respectively. Each patient received six fractions prescribed at 0.5 cm to the superior 3 cm of the vagina. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) doses were calculated for 2D patients. Maximum and 2-cc doses were calculated for 3D patients. Organ doses were normalized to prescription dose.Bladder maximum doses were 178% of ICRU doses (p < 0.0001). Two-cubic centimeter doses were no different than ICRU doses (p = 0.22). Two-cubic centimeter doses were 59% of maximum doses (p < 0.0001). Rectal maximum doses were 137% of ICRU doses (p < 0.0001). Two-cubic centimeter doses were 87% of ICRU doses (p < 0.0001). Two-cubic centimeter doses were 64% of maximum doses (p < 0.0001). Using the first 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 fractions, we predicted the final bladder dose to within 10% for 44%, 59%, 83%, 82%, and 89% of patients by using the ICRU dose, and for 45%, 55%, 80%, 85%, and 85% of patients by using the maximum dose, and for 37%, 68%, 79%, 79%, and 84% of patients by using the 2-cc dose. Using the first 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 fractions, we predicted the final rectal dose to within 10% for 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, and 100% of patients by using the ICRU dose, and for 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, and 75% of patients by using the maximum dose, and for 68%, 95%, 84%, 84%, and 84% of patients by using the 2-cc dose.RESULTSBladder maximum doses were 178% of ICRU doses (p < 0.0001). Two-cubic centimeter doses were no different than ICRU doses (p = 0.22). Two-cubic centimeter doses were 59% of maximum doses (p < 0.0001). Rectal maximum doses were 137% of ICRU doses (p < 0.0001). Two-cubic centimeter doses were 87% of ICRU doses (p < 0.0001). Two-cubic centimeter doses were 64% of maximum doses (p < 0.0001). Using the first 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 fractions, we predicted the final bladder dose to within 10% for 44%, 59%, 83%, 82%, and 89% of patients by using the ICRU dose, and for 45%, 55%, 80%, 85%, and 85% of patients by using the maximum dose, and for 37%, 68%, 79%, 79%, and 84% of patients by using the 2-cc dose. Using the first 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 fractions, we predicted the final rectal dose to within 10% for 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, and 100% of patients by using the ICRU dose, and for 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, and 75% of patients by using the maximum dose, and for 68%, 95%, 84%, 84%, and 84% of patients by using the 2-cc dose.Doses to organs at risk vary depending on the calculation method. In some cases, final dose accuracy appears to plateau after the third fraction, indicating that simulation and planning may not be necessary in all fractions. A clinically relevant level of accuracy should be determined and further research conducted to address this issue.CONCLUSIONSDoses to organs at risk vary depending on the calculation method. In some cases, final dose accuracy appears to plateau after the third fraction, indicating that simulation and planning may not be necessary in all fractions. A clinically relevant level of accuracy should be determined and further research conducted to address this issue.
To evaluate bladder and rectal doses using two-dimensional (2D) and 3D treatment planning for vaginal cuff high-dose rate (HDR) in endometrial cancer. Ninety-one consecutive patients treated between 2000 and 2007 were evaluated. Seventy-one and 20 patients underwent 2D and 3D planning, respectively. Each patient received six fractions prescribed at 0.5 cm to the superior 3 cm of the vagina. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) doses were calculated for 2D patients. Maximum and 2-cc doses were calculated for 3D patients. Organ doses were normalized to prescription dose. Bladder maximum doses were 178% of ICRU doses (p < 0.0001). Two-cubic centimeter doses were no different than ICRU doses (p = 0.22). Two-cubic centimeter doses were 59% of maximum doses (p < 0.0001). Rectal maximum doses were 137% of ICRU doses (p < 0.0001). Two-cubic centimeter doses were 87% of ICRU doses (p < 0.0001). Two-cubic centimeter doses were 64% of maximum doses (p < 0.0001). Using the first 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 fractions, we predicted the final bladder dose to within 10% for 44%, 59%, 83%, 82%, and 89% of patients by using the ICRU dose, and for 45%, 55%, 80%, 85%, and 85% of patients by using the maximum dose, and for 37%, 68%, 79%, 79%, and 84% of patients by using the 2-cc dose. Using the first 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 fractions, we predicted the final rectal dose to within 10% for 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, and 100% of patients by using the ICRU dose, and for 60%, 65%, 70%, 75%, and 75% of patients by using the maximum dose, and for 68%, 95%, 84%, 84%, and 84% of patients by using the 2-cc dose. Doses to organs at risk vary depending on the calculation method. In some cases, final dose accuracy appears to plateau after the third fraction, indicating that simulation and planning may not be necessary in all fractions. A clinically relevant level of accuracy should be determined and further research conducted to address this issue.
Author Armeson, Kent E
Russo, James K
Richardson, Susan
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: James K
  surname: Russo
  fullname: Russo, James K
  organization: Department of Radiation Oncology, Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Kent E
  surname: Armeson
  fullname: Armeson, Kent E
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Susan
  surname: Richardson
  fullname: Richardson, Susan
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22330985$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNpNkFtLwzAUx4NM3EW_gUgefenMpV3TR9m8wcAXBd_GaZusHW0Sk2y4j-C3NpsThAPn9vsfOP8xGmijJULXlEwpobO7zbTdOFPaKSOUTmMQVpyhERV5kfAs-xj8q4do7P2GkEjm6QUaMsY5KUQ2Qt9z01twrTcaG4XZAoOuMV_gtod1q9fHNjgJoZc6YNuB1oexMg5b44Ox0kFodxLvDjx0GKz8wk27bpLaeInjVuLSQdXsQxNZuz9qpa5NL4Nro6ICXUl3ic4VdF5enfIEvT8-vM2fk-Xr08v8fplUaSFCkgum8ipVJSVQspoLBcBTxUtRE66KktcZrUEALRijSlSUAhN0RgEyqJjK2ATd_t61znxupQ-rvvWV7OJn0mz9ihIiBCfRoojenNBt2ct6ZV10xe1Xf_axHyojeFM
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1016_j_canrad_2014_06_011
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_brachy_2015_10_010
crossref_primary_10_1120_jacmp_v15i6_5033
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_brachy_2015_02_391
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_brachy_2019_04_272
crossref_primary_10_1038_srep28074
crossref_primary_10_1017_S1460396923000353
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prro_2012_10_002
crossref_primary_10_3390_biomedicines9111629
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radonc_2015_06_016
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright_xml – notice: Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
DBID CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7X8
DOI 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.11.029
DatabaseName Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitle MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList MEDLINE - Academic
MEDLINE
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: 7X8
  name: MEDLINE - Academic
  url: https://search.proquest.com/medline
  sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod no_fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
EISSN 1879-355X
ExternalDocumentID 22330985
Genre Comparative Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
GrantInformation_xml – fundername: NCI NIH HHS
  grantid: P30 CA138313
GroupedDBID ---
--K
.1-
.FO
0R~
1B1
1P~
1RT
1~5
4.4
457
4G.
53G
5RE
5VS
7-5
AAEDT
AAEDW
AAQFI
AAQQT
AAWTL
AAXUO
ABJNI
ABLJU
ABNEU
ABOCM
ABUDA
ACGFS
ACIUM
ADBBV
ADVLN
AENEX
AEVXI
AFCTW
AFRHN
AFTJW
AHHHB
AITUG
AJUYK
AKRWK
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AMRAJ
BELOY
CGR
CUY
CVF
DU5
EBS
ECM
EFJIC
EIF
EJD
F5P
FDB
GBLVA
HED
HMO
HZ~
IHE
J1W
KOM
LX3
M41
MO0
NPM
O9-
OC~
OO-
RIG
RNS
ROL
RPZ
SDG
SEL
SES
SSZ
UV1
XH2
Z5R
~S-
7X8
ACVFH
ADCNI
AEUPX
AFPUW
AIGII
AKBMS
AKYEP
EFKBS
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c498t-782f7c4fb10ab2d38faa34f3b8d03f9b3d51da8a19221f8c11a28161aa5ac2f52
IEDL.DBID 7X8
ISICitedReferencesCount 12
ISICitedReferencesURI http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000302993900010&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
ISSN 1879-355X
IngestDate Thu Oct 02 07:17:59 EDT 2025
Thu Apr 03 07:01:11 EDT 2025
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 1
Language English
License Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c498t-782f7c4fb10ab2d38faa34f3b8d03f9b3d51da8a19221f8c11a28161aa5ac2f52
Notes ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
PMID 22330985
PQID 1008830223
PQPubID 23479
ParticipantIDs proquest_miscellaneous_1008830223
pubmed_primary_22330985
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2012-05-01
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2012-05-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 05
  year: 2012
  text: 2012-05-01
  day: 01
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationPlace United States
PublicationPlace_xml – name: United States
PublicationTitle International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
PublicationTitleAlternate Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
PublicationYear 2012
SSID ssj0001174
Score 2.1137567
Snippet To evaluate bladder and rectal doses using two-dimensional (2D) and 3D treatment planning for vaginal cuff high-dose rate (HDR) in endometrial cancer....
To evaluate bladder and rectal doses using two-dimensional (2D) and 3D treatment planning for vaginal cuff high-dose rate (HDR) in endometrial cancer.PURPOSETo...
SourceID proquest
pubmed
SourceType Aggregation Database
Index Database
StartPage e75
SubjectTerms Brachytherapy - methods
Carcinoma - radiotherapy
Carcinoma - surgery
Dose Fractionation
Endometrial Neoplasms - radiotherapy
Endometrial Neoplasms - surgery
Female
Fiducial Markers
Humans
Organs at Risk - radiation effects
Postoperative Care - methods
Rectum - radiation effects
Retrospective Studies
Urinary Bladder - radiation effects
Title Comparison of 2D and 3D imaging and treatment planning for postoperative vaginal apex high-dose rate brachytherapy for endometrial cancer
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22330985
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1008830223
Volume 83
WOSCitedRecordID wos000302993900010&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
hasFullText
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpZ3LSsQwFIaDN8SN9_uFCG6DbdLQdCUyo7jQYRYq3ZWTG44wbZ3RwXkE39ok7Yw7EdwUWgiU9DTnT3Ly_QhdRFKolFNLEq41SZThxGVBTdx0KBMmsZEN1gnP92mvJ_I867cLbuO2rHI2JoaBWlfKr5FfegiNZ1VRdlW_Ee8a5XdXWwuNRbTMnJTxJV1p_kMLjxsKszfUJi6v5rOjc6G-a_A6qmTdQDw9x_M3kRmSze3Gf19zE623MhNfN3GxhRZMuY1WH9qN9B301Zn7D-LKYtrFUGrMungwDLZF4XZehI7r1toIO4mLa8_iqE2DDMcTCMZaGGrziT38mOhqbLAnUGA3E1cv0-aI1zS0NaWuhiZYhWDlA260i55ubx47d6R1ZSAqycQ7cZLCpiqxMo5AUs2EBWCJZVLoiNlMMs1jDQKcdKSxFSqOgQqnKwE4KGo53UNLZVWaA4TTzColIsY1GJ9MQRsjJKRSpgwUl4fofNbJhYt6v5UBpak-xsVPNx-i_eZLFXWD5yjcQxZlgh_9ofUxWnMBQJsKxhO0bN0_b07Ripq8D8ajsxBO7trrP3wDfZbX1A
linkProvider ProQuest
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison+of+2D+and+3D+imaging+and+treatment+planning+for+postoperative+vaginal+apex+high-dose+rate+brachytherapy+for+endometrial+cancer&rft.jtitle=International+journal+of+radiation+oncology%2C+biology%2C+physics&rft.au=Russo%2C+James+K&rft.au=Armeson%2C+Kent+E&rft.au=Richardson%2C+Susan&rft.date=2012-05-01&rft.eissn=1879-355X&rft.volume=83&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=e75&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.ijrobp.2011.11.029&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F22330985&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F22330985&rft.externalDocID=22330985
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1879-355X&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1879-355X&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1879-355X&client=summon