We have located links that may give you full text access.
Feasibility of atlas-based active bone marrow sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy for cervical cancer.
Radiotherapy and Oncology 2017 May
BACKGROUND: To test the hypothesis that atlas-based active bone marrow (ABM)-sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) yields similar dosimetric results compared to custom ABM-sparing IMRT for cervical cancer patients.
METHODS: We sampled 62 cervical cancer patients with pre-treatment FDG-PET/CT in training (n=32) or test (n=30) sets. ABM was defined as the subvolume of the pelvic bone marrow (PBM) with standardized uptake value (SUV) above the mean on the average FDG-PET image (ABMAtlas ) vs. the individual's PET (ABMCustom ). Both were deformed to the planning CT. Overlap between the two subvolumes was measured using the Dice coefficient. Three IMRT plans designed to spare PBM, ABMAtlas , or ABMCustom were compared for 30 test patients. Dosimetric parameters were used to evaluate plan quality.
RESULTS: ABMAtlas and ABMCustom volumes were not significantly different (p=0.90), with a mean Dice coefficient of 0.75, indicating good agreement. Compared to IMRT plans designed to spare PBM and ABMCustom , ABMAtlas -sparing IMRT plans achieved excellent target coverage and normal tissue sparing, without reducing dose to ABMCustom (mean ABMCustom dose 29.4Gy vs. 27.1Gyvs. 26.9Gy, respectively; p=0.10); however, PTV coverage and bowel sparing were slightly reduced.
CONCLUSIONS: Atlas-based ABM sparing IMRT is clinically feasible and may obviate the need for customized ABM-sparing as a strategy to reduce hematologic toxicity.
METHODS: We sampled 62 cervical cancer patients with pre-treatment FDG-PET/CT in training (n=32) or test (n=30) sets. ABM was defined as the subvolume of the pelvic bone marrow (PBM) with standardized uptake value (SUV) above the mean on the average FDG-PET image (ABMAtlas ) vs. the individual's PET (ABMCustom ). Both were deformed to the planning CT. Overlap between the two subvolumes was measured using the Dice coefficient. Three IMRT plans designed to spare PBM, ABMAtlas , or ABMCustom were compared for 30 test patients. Dosimetric parameters were used to evaluate plan quality.
RESULTS: ABMAtlas and ABMCustom volumes were not significantly different (p=0.90), with a mean Dice coefficient of 0.75, indicating good agreement. Compared to IMRT plans designed to spare PBM and ABMCustom , ABMAtlas -sparing IMRT plans achieved excellent target coverage and normal tissue sparing, without reducing dose to ABMCustom (mean ABMCustom dose 29.4Gy vs. 27.1Gyvs. 26.9Gy, respectively; p=0.10); however, PTV coverage and bowel sparing were slightly reduced.
CONCLUSIONS: Atlas-based ABM sparing IMRT is clinically feasible and may obviate the need for customized ABM-sparing as a strategy to reduce hematologic toxicity.
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