We have located links that may give you full text access.
SU-F-T-27: A Comparative Case Study Among Four Modalities for the Superficial Treatment of Squamous Cell Carcinoma.
Medical Physics 2016 June
PURPOSE: We performed a comparative planning study among High Dose Rate (HDR) brachytherapy, superficial electrons, Volume Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), and Helical IMRT (Tomotherapy) for squamous cell carcinoma of the abdominal wall with consideration for the underlining bowel.
METHODS: A 69-year old female presented with squamous cell carcinoma protruding 8mm beyond the anterior skin surface of the midabdomen was considered for treatment. The patient had a ventral hernia which resulted in the reduction of the abdominal wall thickness and the adjacent small bowel being the dose limiting structure. Four plans were generated using different treatment modalities: a) an enface electron field (eMC, Eclipse v. 11), b) Tomotherapy (HI-Art II v.5.0.5), c) VMAT (Acuros, Eclipse v. 11), and d) HDR using a Freiburg applicator (Oncentra v. 4.3). The following plan objectives were used for all four plans: for the CTV target, V90% ≥90% (61.8Gy2/2).For the small bowel, D0.1cc < 56.2 Gy2/2 was a hard constraint and expressed as a percentage of the prescription for comparison to demonstrate the dose fall-off achieved among the modalities.For HDR, V200% <0.1cc was an additional constraint. Multiple dosimetric parameters, including those listed above, were compared among the four modalities.
RESULTS: The HDR plan showed comparable target coverage compared to the Tomotherapy plan and better coverage compared to the electron plan. Small bowel doses (D0.1cc) were lower in HDR plan compared to Tomotherapy, electron, & VMAT plans (88.8%, 89.6%, 90.9%, & 96.6%). Integral dose to the whole body (V5%) was much higher for HDR, VMAT, and Tomotherapy when compared to electron plan by factors of seven, eight, and ten, respectively. After reviewing all treatment modalities, the physician selected HDR owing to better control of the small bowel dose while maintaining adequate target coverage.
CONCLUSION: This case study demonstrated HDR can successfully treat superficial lesions with superior sparing of underlying structures.
METHODS: A 69-year old female presented with squamous cell carcinoma protruding 8mm beyond the anterior skin surface of the midabdomen was considered for treatment. The patient had a ventral hernia which resulted in the reduction of the abdominal wall thickness and the adjacent small bowel being the dose limiting structure. Four plans were generated using different treatment modalities: a) an enface electron field (eMC, Eclipse v. 11), b) Tomotherapy (HI-Art II v.5.0.5), c) VMAT (Acuros, Eclipse v. 11), and d) HDR using a Freiburg applicator (Oncentra v. 4.3). The following plan objectives were used for all four plans: for the CTV target, V90% ≥90% (61.8Gy2/2).For the small bowel, D0.1cc < 56.2 Gy2/2 was a hard constraint and expressed as a percentage of the prescription for comparison to demonstrate the dose fall-off achieved among the modalities.For HDR, V200% <0.1cc was an additional constraint. Multiple dosimetric parameters, including those listed above, were compared among the four modalities.
RESULTS: The HDR plan showed comparable target coverage compared to the Tomotherapy plan and better coverage compared to the electron plan. Small bowel doses (D0.1cc) were lower in HDR plan compared to Tomotherapy, electron, & VMAT plans (88.8%, 89.6%, 90.9%, & 96.6%). Integral dose to the whole body (V5%) was much higher for HDR, VMAT, and Tomotherapy when compared to electron plan by factors of seven, eight, and ten, respectively. After reviewing all treatment modalities, the physician selected HDR owing to better control of the small bowel dose while maintaining adequate target coverage.
CONCLUSION: This case study demonstrated HDR can successfully treat superficial lesions with superior sparing of underlying structures.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app