Is two-dimensional field definition sufficient for pelvic node coverage in rectal cancer compared to technical three-dimensional definition?

Maria Antonietta Gambacorta, Danilo Pasini, Bruce Minsky, Stefano Arcangeli, Alice Mannocci, Maria Cristina Barba, Brunella Barbaro, Stefania Manfrida, Mario Balducci, Vincenzo Valentini

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background and aim. To assess the effectiveness of the potential advantages with 3- dimensional-based treatment planning versus 2-dimensional pelvic bone-based treatment planning in patients with rectal cancer, controlled for clinical stage. Methods and materials. Areas at risk from computed tomography in 30 patients were delineated: mesorectum, presacral, internal iliac, obturator and external iliac nodes. Two planning target volumes per patient were created: PTV-T3 (M + PSN + ON + IIN) and PTV-T4 (M + PSN + ON + IIN + EIN). Two- and 3-dimensional treatment plans for each planning target volume were calculated. Three analyses were performed: 1) mean volume receiving doses >95% and >105%; according to the percentage of prescribed dose to cover at least 95% of the planning target volume, the treatment plan was defined as optimal dose >95%, acceptable dose between 95% and 90%, inferior dose <90%; 2) comparison of the percentage of volume covered by the dose for 2- vs 3-dimensional; 3) determination of the doses at which the lack of volume coverage started to decrease significantly. Results. For PTV-T3, the following was seen: 1) 2D vs 3D comparison showed optimal PTV-T3 coverage in 76.7% and 96.7%, respectively; 2) 2D vs 3D TP coverage difference was significant between 29%-95% of the total dose; 3) the lack of volume coverage started at 30% for 2D and 89% for 3D. For PTV-T4, the following was seen: 1) 2D vs 3D comparison showed an optimal PTV-T4 coverage in 33.3% and 86.7%, respectively; 2) 2D vs 3D TP coverage difference was significant between 7%-97% of the total dose; 3) the lack of volume coverage started at 7% for 2D and 87% for 3D. Conclusions. The 3D treatment planning was superior to 2D treatment planning in covering areas at risk for pelvic recurrence in patients treated for rectal cancer. The areas with suboptimal coverage may lead to an increased risk of recurrence and should be correlated with the patterns of recurrence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)191-198
Number of pages8
JournalTumori
Volume99
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2013

Keywords

  • Dosimetric comparison
  • Radiotherapy
  • Rectal cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Is two-dimensional field definition sufficient for pelvic node coverage in rectal cancer compared to technical three-dimensional definition?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Gambacorta, M. A., Pasini, D., Minsky, B., Arcangeli, S., Mannocci, A., Barba, M. C., Barbaro, B., Manfrida, S., Balducci, M., & Valentini, V. (2013). Is two-dimensional field definition sufficient for pelvic node coverage in rectal cancer compared to technical three-dimensional definition? Tumori, 99(2), 191-198. https://doi.org/10.1700/1283.14191