The Comparison of Radiation Dosimetry of Rectal Cancer in Two Supine and Prone Positions

Document Type : Original Article(s)

Authors

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

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

3 Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

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

Abstract

Background: Colorectal cancer is the most common gastrointestinal cancer and the fourth leading cause of death in the world. This study aimed to investigate and compare dosimetric differences in radiation therapy for rectal cancer in two supine and prone positions.
Methods: In a cross-sectional study in Milad Hospital in Isfahan, the CT scan data of 30 patients who are candidates for radiation therapy for rectal cancer were sent to the treatment design software. The target organ PTV (Planning Target Volume) and the organs at risk including the bowel bag and the bladder were contoured by the radio-oncologist. The design of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D_CRT) was designed using 3 and 4 field methods and 18 megavolt energy. Finally, using the dose-volume distribution curve dose-volume histogram (DVH), the dosimetry of the target organs and the organs at risk were discovered and converted by assimilation.
Findings: The average dose that will receive by the bowel bag and bladder in the prone position in the 3-field method was significantly lower than the other studied methods. In addition, the position of the 3-fields supine delivers a higher dose to the organs at risk than the 3-fields prone. However, organs of the four fields in supine position will receive a higher dose compared to the other fields.
Conclusion: In radiation therapy of rectal cancer, due to the improvement of the coverage of the target volume and better dose design, it is suggested than the treatment with the 3-field in position prone.

Keywords

References

  1. Mohammadi G, Akbari ME, Mehrabi Y, Motlagh AG, Heidari M, Ghanbari S. Analysis of cancer incidence and mortality in Iran using joinpoint regression analysis. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2017; 19(3): e42071.
  2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 2015; 65(1): 5-29.
  3. Wolf AM, Fontham ET, Church TR, Flowers CR, Guerra CE, LaMonte SJ, et al. Colorectal cancer screening for average‐risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68(4): 250-81.
  4. Rock CL, Thomson C, Gansler T, Gapstur SM, McCullough ML, Patel AV, et al. American Cancer Society guideline for diet and physical activity for cancer prevention. CA Cancer J Clin 2020; 70(4): 245-71.
  5. Bae JS, Kim SH, Hur BY, Chang W, Park J, Park
    HE, et al. Prognostic value of MRI in assessing extramural venous invasion in rectal cancer: multi-readers’ diagnostic performance. Eur Radiol 2019; 29(8): 4379-88.
  6. El Sissy C, Kirilovsky A, Van den Eynde M, Muşină AM, Anitei MG, Romero A, et al. A diagnostic biopsy-adapted immunoscore predicts response to neoadjuvant treatment and selects patients with rectal cancer eligible for a watch-and-wait strategy. Clin Cancer Res 2020; 26(19): 5198-207.
  7. Fong TV, Chuah SK, Chiou SS, Chiu KW, Hsu CC, Chiu YC, et al. Correlation of the morphology and size of colonic polyps with their histology. Chang Gung Med J 2003; 26(5): 339-43
  8. Zhou Q, Li K, Lin GZ, Shen JC, Dong H, Gu YT, et al. Incidence trends and age distribution of colorectal cancer by subsite in Guangzhou, 2000-2011. Chin J Cancer 2015; 34(3): 34.
  9. Haggar FA, Boushey RP. Colorectal cancer epidemiology: incidence, mortality, survival, and risk factors. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2009; 22(4): 191-7.
  10. Zubaidi AM, AlSubaie NM, AlHumaid AA, Shaik SA, AlKhayal KA, AlObeed OA. Public awareness of colorectal cancer in Saudi Arabia: A survey of 1070 participants in Riyadh. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2015; 21(2): 78-83.
  11. Expósito J, Linares I, Castillo I, Martínez M, Vargas P, Herruzo I, et al. Evaluation of the utilization of external radiotherapy in the treatment of localized prostate cancer in Andalusia, Spain. Radiat Oncol 2015; 10(1): 265.
  12. Frøseth TC, Strickert T, Solli KS, Salvesen Ø, Frykholm G, Reidunsdatter RJ. A randomized study of the effect of patient positioning on setup reproducibility and dose distribution to organs at risk in radiotherapy of rectal cancer patients. Radiat Oncol 2015; 10(1): 217.
  13. Yang Y, Cai S, Zhao T, Peng Q, Qian J, Tian Y. Effect of prone and supine treatment positions for postoperative treatment of rectal cancer on target dose coverage and small bowel sparing using intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Transl Cancer Res 2020; 9(2): 491-9.
  14. Drzymala M, Hawkins M, Henrys A, Bedford J, Norman A, Tait D. The effect of treatment position, prone or supine, on dose-volume histograms for pelvic radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer. Br J Radiol 2009; 82(976): 321-7.
  15. Siddiqui F, Shi C, Papanikolaou N, Fuss M. Image-guidance protocol comparison: supine and prone set-up accuracy for pelvic radiation therapy. Acta Oncol 2008; 47(7): 1344-50.
  16. Banerjee R, Chakraborty S, Nygren I, Sinha R. Small bowel dose parameters predicting grade ≥ 3 acute toxicity in rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation: an independent validation study comparing peritoneal space versus small bowel loop contouring techniques. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 85(5): 1225-31.
  17. Roeder F, Meldolesi E, Gerum S, Valentini V, Rödel C. Recent advances in (chemo-) radiation therapy for rectal cancer: a comprehensive review. Radiat Oncol 2020; 15(1): 262.
  18. Sauer R, Liersch T, Merkel S, Fietkau R, Hohenberger W, Hess C, et al. Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: results of the German CAO/ARO/AIO-94 randomized phase III trial after a median follow-up of 11 years. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30(16): 1926-33.
  19. White R, Foroudi F, Sia J, Marr MA, Lim Joon D. Reduced dose to small bowel with the prone position and a belly board versus the supine position in neoadjuvant 3D conformal radiotherapy for rectal adenocarcinoma. J Med Radiat Sci 2017; 64(2):
    120-4.
  20. Rajeev KR, Menon SS, Beena K, Holla R, Kumar RR, Dinesh M. A comparative study of set up variations and bowel volumes in supine versus prone positions of patients treated with external beam radiation for carcinoma rectum. J Cancer Res Ther 2014; 10(4): 937-41.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 41, Issue 716
4th Week, June
May and June 2023
Pages 270-276

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 25 January 2023
  • Accept Date: 17 April 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics