Technical Report - High-dose-rate-intracavitary brachytherapy applications and the difference in the bladder and rectum doses: A study from rural centre of Maharashatra, India
Aim : To report the difference in the bladder and rectum doses with different applications by the radiotherapists in the same patient of the carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated by multiple fractions of high-dose-rate (HDR) intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT). Materials and Methods : Between Janua...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of cancer research and therapeutics 2007-10, Vol.3 (2) |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Aim : To report the difference in the bladder and rectum doses with
different applications by the radiotherapists in the same patient of
the carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated by multiple fractions of
high-dose-rate (HDR) intracavitary brachytherapy (ICBT). Materials and
Methods : Between January 2003 to December 2004, a total of 60 cases of
the carcinoma uterine cervix were selected randomly for the
retrospective analyses. All 60 cases were grouped in six groups
according to the treating radiotherapist who did the HDR-ICBT
application. Three radiotherapists were considered for this study,
named A, B and C. Ten cases for each radiotherapist in whom all three
applications were done by the same radiotherapist. And 10 cases for
each radiotherapist with shared applications in the same patient (A+B,
A+C and B+C). The bladder and rectal doses were calculated in reference
to point "A" dose and were limited to 80% of prescribed point "A" dose,
as per ICRU-38 recommendations. Received dose grouped in three groups-
less then 80% (< 80%), 80-100% and above 100% (>100%). A total of
180 applications for 60 patients were calculated for the above
analyses. Results : There is a lot of difference in the bladder and
rectal doses with the application by the different radiotherapists,
even in the same patient with multiple fractions of HDR-ICBT.
Applications by ′A′ radiotherapist were within the limits
in the self as well as in the shared groups more number of times, by
′B′ radiotherapist was more times exceeding the limit and
by ′C′ radiotherapist doses were in between the A and B.
Discussion and Conclusion : For the rectal and bladder doses most
important factors are patient′s age, disease stage, duration
between EBRT and HDR-ICRT and patient anatomy, but these differences
can be minimized to some extent by careful application, proper packing
and proper fixation. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0973-1482 |