Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
2
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
1996-12-3
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
Historically, four perpendicular treatment fields or bilateral arcs have been used in the treatment of prostate cancer. "New techniques" including four conformal fields, seven conformal fields, 120 degrees bilateral conformal coplanar, and non-coplanar arc'ed beam arrangements, are replacing the "older" approaches. These techniques result in a reduction in doses to adjacent critical structures while covering the clinical target volume (CTV). This study, analyzes the impact of random or systematic isocenter displacement errors (IDE) associated with the delivery of radiotherapy, using the best of these "newer techniques". Dose Volume Histograms (DVH) were used to evaluate the dose to the prostate and surrounding normal tissues with 0.3 cm, 0.5 cm and 0.8 cm IDE. It was determined that IDE associated with fixed coplanar treatment techniques could reduced the prescribed dose to the prostate by 0-8%, the coplanar are technique reduced the prescribed prostate dose by 3-10%, and the noncoplanar conformal arc technique could lower the prescribed prostate dose by 0-5%. Predictably, 0.3 cm IDE found in the posterior and inferior direction increase the dose to the rectum by 5-12% and lowered the dose to the bladder by 4-8%. Errors in the superior and anterior direction increased the dose to the bladder by 4-8% and decreased the dose to the rectum by 8-10%. Errors in the right to left direction slightly increased the dose to the ipsilateral femoral head. Doses to the rectum and bladder associated with 0.5 cm and 0.8 cm IDE are significantly larger. The frequency and magnitude of IDE must be accounted for before higher doses can be delivered safety. Recognizing the impact of IDE on our ability to deliver the prescribed dose to the planning target volumes (PTV) could incorporate the impact of IDE during the planning process.
|
| pubmed:language |
eng
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:issn |
0958-3947
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:volume |
21
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
61-8; quiz 70-2
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2008-11-21
|
| pubmed:meshHeading |
pubmed-meshheading:8807605-Femur Head,
pubmed-meshheading:8807605-Health Physics,
pubmed-meshheading:8807605-Humans,
pubmed-meshheading:8807605-Male,
pubmed-meshheading:8807605-Patient Care Planning,
pubmed-meshheading:8807605-Photons,
pubmed-meshheading:8807605-Prescriptions,
pubmed-meshheading:8807605-Prostate,
pubmed-meshheading:8807605-Prostatic Neoplasms,
pubmed-meshheading:8807605-Radiation Protection,
pubmed-meshheading:8807605-Radiotherapy, High-Energy,
pubmed-meshheading:8807605-Radiotherapy Dosage,
pubmed-meshheading:8807605-Rectum,
pubmed-meshheading:8807605-Urinary Bladder
|
| pubmed:year |
1996
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
The impact of isocenter placement errors associated with dose distributions used in irradiating prostate cancer.
|
| pubmed:affiliation |
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco UCSF/Mt. Zion Cancer Center, USA.
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article
|