TY - JOUR
T1 - Focal dose escalation using FDG-PET-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy boost for postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer
T2 - A planning study with comparison of DVH and NTCP
AU - Jingu, Keiichi
AU - Ariga, Hisanori
AU - Kaneta, Tomohiro
AU - Takai, Yoshihiro
AU - Takeda, Ken
AU - Katja, Lindel
AU - Narazaki, Kakutaro
AU - Metoki, Takahiro
AU - Fujimoto, Keisuke
AU - Umezawa, Rei
AU - Ogawa, Yoshihiro
AU - Nemoto, Kenji
AU - Koto, Masashi
AU - Mitsuya, Masatoshi
AU - Matsufuji, Naruhiro
AU - Takahashi, Shoki
AU - Yamada, Shogo
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was partially supported by funding from the Japan Radiological Society.
PY - 2010/4/7
Y1 - 2010/4/7
N2 - Background: To evaluate the safety of focal dose escalation to regions with standardized uptake value (SUV) >2.0 using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) by comparison of radiotherapy plans using dose-volume histograms (DVHs) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer. Methods: First, we performed conventional radiotherapy with 40 Gy/20 fr. (CRT 40 Gy) for 12 patients with postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer, and then we performed FDG-PET/CT radiotherapy planning for those patients. We defined the regions with SUV > 2.0 as biological target volume (BTV) and made three boost plans for each patient: 1) CRT boost plan, 2) IMRT without dose-painting boost plan, and 3) IMRT with dose-painting boost plan. The total boost dose was 20 Gy. In IMRT with dose-painting boost plan, we increased the dose for BTV+5 mm by 30% of the prescribed dose. We added CRT boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 1), IMRT without dose-painting boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 2) and IMRT with dose-painting boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 3), and we compared those plans using DVHs and NTCP.Results: Dmeanof PTV-PET and that of PTV-CT were 26.5 Gy and 21.3 Gy, respectively. V50of small bowel PRV in summed plan 1 was significantly higher than those in other plans ((summed plan 1 vs. summed plan 2 vs. summed plan 3: 47.11 ± 45.33 cm3vs. 40.63 ± 39.13 cm3 vs. 41.25 ± 39.96 cm3(p < 0.01, respectively)). There were no significant differences in V30, V40, V60, Dmean or NTCP of small bowel PRV.Conclusions: FDG-PET-guided IMRT can facilitate focal dose-escalation to regions with SUV above 2.0 for postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer.
AB - Background: To evaluate the safety of focal dose escalation to regions with standardized uptake value (SUV) >2.0 using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) by comparison of radiotherapy plans using dose-volume histograms (DVHs) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer. Methods: First, we performed conventional radiotherapy with 40 Gy/20 fr. (CRT 40 Gy) for 12 patients with postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer, and then we performed FDG-PET/CT radiotherapy planning for those patients. We defined the regions with SUV > 2.0 as biological target volume (BTV) and made three boost plans for each patient: 1) CRT boost plan, 2) IMRT without dose-painting boost plan, and 3) IMRT with dose-painting boost plan. The total boost dose was 20 Gy. In IMRT with dose-painting boost plan, we increased the dose for BTV+5 mm by 30% of the prescribed dose. We added CRT boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 1), IMRT without dose-painting boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 2) and IMRT with dose-painting boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 3), and we compared those plans using DVHs and NTCP.Results: Dmeanof PTV-PET and that of PTV-CT were 26.5 Gy and 21.3 Gy, respectively. V50of small bowel PRV in summed plan 1 was significantly higher than those in other plans ((summed plan 1 vs. summed plan 2 vs. summed plan 3: 47.11 ± 45.33 cm3vs. 40.63 ± 39.13 cm3 vs. 41.25 ± 39.96 cm3(p < 0.01, respectively)). There were no significant differences in V30, V40, V60, Dmean or NTCP of small bowel PRV.Conclusions: FDG-PET-guided IMRT can facilitate focal dose-escalation to regions with SUV above 2.0 for postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77950688613&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77950688613&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/1471-2407-10-127
DO - 10.1186/1471-2407-10-127
M3 - Article
C2 - 20374623
AN - SCOPUS:77950688613
SN - 1471-2407
VL - 10
JO - BMC Cancer
JF - BMC Cancer
M1 - 127
ER -
