Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Cancer Radiother. 2012 May;16(3):209-14. doi: 10.1016/j.canrad.2012.02.002. Epub 2012 Apr 10.

[Dosimetric comparison between the intensity modulated radiotherapy with fixed field and Rapid Arc of cervix cancer].

[Article in French]

Author information

1
Département de radiothérapie, centre Alexis-Vautrin, avenue de Bourgogne, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France. s.renard@nancy.unicancer.fr

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Concurrent radiochemotherapy is the standard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer. This treatment is responsible for bowel and hematologic toxicities. The use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), in static beams, allows a decrease of this toxicity. The technique of RapidArc(®) IMRT could lower the dose delivered to the organs at risk and improve the homogeneity of the planning target volume coverage, while decreasing the processing time.

PATIENTS AND MATERIALS:

For 20 patients, treatment plans performed with IMRT and RapidArc(®) were compared. The target volumes were: the clinical target volume (gross tumour volume, uterus, upper third of the vagina, the hypogastric, iliac and presacral nodal regions), and the planning target volume (clinical target volume+1cm). The delineated organs at risk were: rectum, bladder, bowel and bone marrow. The dose was 45 Gy in 25 fractions. IMRT were delivered with five beams and RapidArc(®) with two arcs. The comparisons were made by the non-parametric test of Wilcoxon.

RESULTS:

Medium coverage of the planning target volume was better with RapidArc(®) (P=0.01). It was also better regarding the sparing of bowel (P=0.01) and IMRT was better regarding the sparing of bladder (P=0.01) and rectum (P=0.05). The total volume receiving 20 Gy was less important with RapidArc(®) (P<0.001). RapidArc(®) allowed to decrease the treatment time (3 versus 12 minutes with IMRT) and the number of monitor units (MU) (376.5 versus 962.2, on average, P=0.0001).

CONCLUSION:

The technique of RapidArc(®) seems to obtain better dosimetric results compared to RCMI, with fewer MU, and a significant decrease in treatment time.

PMID:
22498094
DOI:
10.1016/j.canrad.2012.02.002
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center