Comparison of Organs at Risk Dose in Conventional (2-Dimensional) and Conformal (3-Dimensional) Radiotherapy of Seminoma

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 MSc Student, Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Radiotherapy, School of Paramedicine, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences AND Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Tohid Hospital, Sanandaj, Iran

3 Associate Professor, Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Seyedolshohada Hospital, Isfahan, Iran

4 Professor, Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to predict and compare the dose received by normal critical organs in radiotherapy of stage one seminoma in conventional (2-dimensional or 2D) and conformal (3-dimensional or 3D) methods.Methods: Conventional treatment was designed based on bony anatomy, and conformal treatment based on vessels and nodal anatomy, for 10 patients with 6-MV photon and total dose of 25 Gy. Dose distribution of inside and outside of field was measured (with the profiler system) and calculated (with a treatment planning system).Findings: Mean received dose was 5.58 and 7.16, 20.67 and 19.29, 5.20 and 3.19, 9.73 and 6.43, 5.96 and 7.60 Gy for kidneys, pancreas, liver, stomach, and colon in conventional and conformal methods, respectively. For organs out of the field, mean received dose was 1.55 and 1.48 Gy for right and left kidneys in conventional and conformal methods, respectively. Moreover, the mean received dose by testis was 7 and 6 cGy in conventional and conformal methods, respectively.Conclusion: In conformal treatment method, due to more accurate design of target volume, probability of recurrence was less, and the damage to kidneys and colon was predicted more.

Keywords

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010; 60(5): 277-300.
  2. Wilder RB, Buyyounouski MK, Efstathiou JA, Beard CJ. Radiotherapy treatment planning for testicular seminoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 83(4): e445-e452.
  3. Halperin EC, Brady LW, Perez CA, Wazer DE. Perez and Brady's principles and practice of radiation oncology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williamsand Wilkins; 2013.
  4. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. RTOG 1102 Protocol Information [Online]. [cited 2011 Nov 15]; Available from: URL: https://www.rtog.org/ClinicalTrials/ProtocolTable/StudyDetails.aspx?study=1102
  5. Lewinshtein D, Gulati R, Nelson PS, Porter CR. Incidence of second malignancies after external beam radiotherapy for clinical stage I testicular seminoma. BJU Int 2012; 109(5): 706-12.
  6. Zilli T, Boudreau C, Doucet R, Alizadeh M, Lambert C, van Nguyen T, et al. Bone marrow-sparing intensity-modulated radiation therapy for Stage I seminoma. Acta Oncol 2011; 50(4): 555-62.
  7. Martin JM, Joon DL, Ng N, Grace M, Gelderen DV, Lawlor M, et al. Towards individualised radiotherapy for Stage I seminoma. Radiother Oncol 2005; 76(3): 251-6.
  8. Barrett A, Morris S, Dobbs J, Roques T. Practical radiotherapy planning. 4th ed. New York, NY: CRC Press; 2009.
  9. Khan FM, Gibbons JP. The physics of radiation therapy. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2003.
  10. Howell RM, Scarboro SB, Kry SF, Yaldo DZ. Accuracy of out-of-field dose calculations by a commercial treatment planning system. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55(23): 6999-7008.
  11. Mazonakis M, Varveris C, Lyraraki E, Damilakis J. Radiotherapy for stage I seminoma of the testis: Organ equivalent dose to partially in-field structures and second cancer risk estimates on the basis of a mechanistic, bell-shaped, and plateau model. Med Phys 2015; 42(11): 6309-16.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 36, Issue 478 - Serial Number 478
March and April 2018
Pages 466-471

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 10 December 2017
  • Revise Date: 27 May 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics