Oral contrast agents lead to underestimation of dose calculation in volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning for pelvic irradiation.
10.1097/CM9.0000000000001025
- Author:
Hao JING
1
;
Yuan TIAN
;
Yu TANG
;
Shu-Lian WANG
;
Jing JIN
;
Yong-Wen SONG
;
Yue-Ping LIU
;
Hui FANG
;
Bo CHEN
;
Shu-Nan QI
;
Yuan TANG
;
Ning-Ning LU
;
Yong YANG
;
Ning LI
;
Ye-Xiong LI
Author Information
1. Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- From:
Chinese Medical Journal
2020;133(17):2061-2070
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND:The effects of oral contrast agents (OCAs) on dosimetry have not been studied in detail. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the influence of OCAs on dose calculation in volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans for rectal cancer.
METHODS:From 2008 to 2016, computed tomography (CT) images were obtained from 33 rectal cancer patients administered OCA with or without intravenous contrast agent (ICA) and 14 patients who received no contrast agent. CT numbers of organs at risk were recorded and converted to electronic densities. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans were designed before and after the original densities were replaced with non-enhanced densities. Doses to the planned target volume (PTV) and organs at risk were compared between the plans.
RESULTS:OCA significantly increased the mean and maximum densities of the bowels, while the effects of ICA on these parameters depended on the blood supply of the organs. With OCA, the actual doses for PTV were significantly higher than planned and doses to the bowel increased significantly although moderately. However, the increase in the volume receiving a high-range doses was substantial (the absolute change of intestine volume receiving ≥52 Gy: 1.46 [0.05-3.99, cubic centimeter range: -6.74 to 128.12], the absolute change of colon volume receiving ≥50 Gy: 0.34 [0.01-1.53 cc, range: -0.08 to 3.80 cc]. Dose changes due to ICA were insignificant. Pearson correlation showed that dose changes were significantly correlated with a high intestinal volume within or near the PTV (ρ > 0.5, P < 0.05) and with the density of enhanced intestine (ρ > 0.3, P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS:Contrast agents applied in simulation cause underestimation of doses in actual treatment. The overdose due to ICA was slight, while that due to OCA was moderate. The bowel volume receiving ≥50Gy was dramatically increased when OCA within the bowel was absent. Physicians should be aware of these issues if the original plan is barely within clinical tolerance or if a considerable volume of enhanced intestine is within or near the PTV.
