Parallel-opposed fields versus four fields, and two- versus three-dimensional radiotherapy planning in thin patients with gynecological malignancies

In: NEOPLASMA, vol. 55, no. 2

E. Bednaruk-Młynski - E. Senkus-Konefka - P. Szewczyk - A. Badzio - J. Jassem

Detaily:

Rok, strany: 2008, 151 - 157

O článku:

debatable. This study compares dose distribution for 2D and 3D treatment techniques for cobalt (60Co) and high energy photons from linear accelerator (LA) in cervical and endometrial cancer patients with antero-posterior diameter of less than 20 cm. CT-based 3D treatment planning and 2D simulation were performed in 10 patients. Particular techniques were compared in terms of treatment portal areas, coverage of planning target volume (PTV) and sparing of critical organs. For 60Co beams, PTV was not covered adequately with 2D fields in nine patients and with conformal fields in seven. For LA, PTV was not adequately covered with 2D two-field and 2D four-field (“box”) technique in three and one patients, respectively. Mean bladder dose was comparable for all plans. Both 2D “box” and 3D “box” technique spared additional portion of the rectum volume included in 95% isodose, compared to two-field plan. 3D treatment planning better protected the small intestine. Use of multiple field techniques and 3D planning allows for some improvement of PTV coverage and normal tissue sparing, although the magnitude of this benefit must be weighted against savings of time and labour related to use of simpler treatment techniques. Key words: gynecological malignancies, pelvic radiotherapy, radiation technique

Ako citovať:

ISO 690:

Bednaruk-Młynski, E., Senkus-Konefka, E., Szewczyk, P., Badzio, A., Jassem, J. 2008. Parallel-opposed fields versus four fields, and two- versus three-dimensional radiotherapy planning in thin patients with gynecological malignancies. In NEOPLASMA, vol. 55, no.2, pp. 151-157. 0028-2685.

APA:

Bednaruk-Młynski, E., Senkus-Konefka, E., Szewczyk, P., Badzio, A., Jassem, J. (2008). Parallel-opposed fields versus four fields, and two- versus three-dimensional radiotherapy planning in thin patients with gynecological malignancies. NEOPLASMA, 55(2), 151-157. 0028-2685.