Dosimetric effects of prone immobilization devices combined with a belly-board in intensity-modulated radiotherapy for gynecologic cancers
10.3760/cma.j.cn112271-20220923-00385
- VernacularTitle:俯卧盆腔固定装置在妇科肿瘤调强放疗计划中的剂量学影响
- Author:
Jie DONG
1
;
Donghui WANG
;
Zhenghuan LI
;
Fantu KONG
;
Luxi CHEN
;
Huamei YAN
;
Xiangying XU
Author Information
1. 中山大学附属第三医院肿瘤放射治疗科，广州 510630
- Keywords:
Gynecologic cancer;
Radiotherapy;
Prone immobilization device;
Dose distribution;
Anthropomorphic phantom
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiological Medicine and Protection
2023;43(1):23-29
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the dosimetric effects of prone immobilization devices combined with a belly board (PIDBBs) in the intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for gynecologic cancers.Methods:A total of 20 patients with cervical or endometrial cancer treated with radiotherapy in the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University from August 2020 to June 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Two sets of body contours were outlined for each patient. One set of body contours did not contain the immobilization devices, and the other contour set included the immobilization devices. For each patient, doses were calculated for the two sets of contours using the same 7-field IMRT plan and were recorded as Plan without and Plan with. The dosimetric difference caused by the immobilization devices was assessed by comparing the parameter values in the dose-volume histograms (DVHs) and by plan subtraction. The Gafchromic EBT3 film and anthropomorphic phantom were used to verify the calculated doses. Results:The target coverage and average dose of Plan with were lower than those of Plan without. Specifically, the V50 Gy, V49 Gy, and Dmean of planning target volume (PTV) decreased by 19.75%, 7.99%, and 2.54% ( t = 8.96, 10.49, 22.09, P < 0.01), respectively. The V40 Gy, V30 Gy, V20 Gy, V15 Gy, and Dmean of skins increased by 51.79%, 51.05%, 45.72%, 33.63% and 10.80% ( t = -2.54, -5.63, -15.57, -24.06, -13.88, P < 0.01), respectively. Doses to other organs at risk (OARs) showed no significant differences. As indicated by the EBT3 measurements, the doses to skins of the abdomen and pelvis on the anthropomorphic phantom increased by approximately 37.24% ( t = 10.86, P<0.01). Conclusions:Although PIDBBs can effectively reduce the low dose to the small intestine, the radiation attenuation caused by them can reduce the PTV coverage of radiotherapy plans and increase the doses to abdominal and pelvic skins sharply, especially for patients requiring irradiation of the groin and perineum.
