skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Dosimetric and toxicity comparison between prone and supine position IMRT for endometrial cancer

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the dosimetric and toxicity differences between prone and supine position intensity-modulate radiotherapy in endometrial cancer patients treated with adjuvant radiotherapy. Methods: Forty-seven consecutive endometrial cancer patients treated with adjuvant RT were analyzed. Of these, 21 were treated in prone position and 26 in the supine position. Dose-volume histograms for normal tissue structures and targets were compared between the two groups. Acute and chronic toxicity were also compared between the cohorts. Results: The percentage of volume receiving 10, 20, 30, 40, 45, and 50 Gy for small bowel was 89.5%, 69%, 33%, 12.2%, 5%, and 0% in the prone group and 87.5%, 62.7%, 26.4%, 8%, 4.3%, and 0% in the supine group, respectively. The difference was not statistically significant. The dose-volume histograms for bladder and rectum were also comparable, except for a slightly greater percentage of volume receiving 10 Gy (1.5%) and 20 Gy (5%) for the rectum in the prone group. Acute small bowel toxicities were Grade 1 in 7 patients and Grade 2 in 14 patients in the prone group vs. Grade 1 in 6 patients and Grade 2 in 19 patients in the supine group. Chronic toxicity was Grade 1 in 7 patients and Grademore » 3 in 1 patient in the prone group and Grade 1 in 5 patients in the supine group. Conclusion: These preliminary results suggest that no difference exists in the dose to the normal tissue and toxicity between prone and supine intensity-modulated radiotherapy for endometrial cancer. Longer follow-up and more outcome studies are needed to determine whether any differences exist between the two approaches.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3];  [4];  [3];  [3];  [3];  [4]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA (United States) and University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA (United States). E-mail: beriwals@upmc.edu
  2. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA (United States)
  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA (United States)
  4. (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
20944691
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 67; Journal Issue: 2; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.08.067; PII: S0360-3016(06)02828-8; Copyright (c) 2007 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, Netherlands, All rights reserved; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; BLADDER; CARCINOMAS; PATIENTS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; RECTUM; TOXICITY

Citation Formats

Beriwal, Sushil, Jain, Sheena K., Heron, Dwight E., University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, De Andrade, Regiane S., Lin, Chyonghiou J., Kim, Hayeon, and University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. Dosimetric and toxicity comparison between prone and supine position IMRT for endometrial cancer. United States: N. p., 2007. Web. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.08.067.
Beriwal, Sushil, Jain, Sheena K., Heron, Dwight E., University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, De Andrade, Regiane S., Lin, Chyonghiou J., Kim, Hayeon, & University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. Dosimetric and toxicity comparison between prone and supine position IMRT for endometrial cancer. United States. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.08.067.
Beriwal, Sushil, Jain, Sheena K., Heron, Dwight E., University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, De Andrade, Regiane S., Lin, Chyonghiou J., Kim, Hayeon, and University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. Thu . "Dosimetric and toxicity comparison between prone and supine position IMRT for endometrial cancer". United States. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.08.067.
@article{osti_20944691,
title = {Dosimetric and toxicity comparison between prone and supine position IMRT for endometrial cancer},
author = {Beriwal, Sushil and Jain, Sheena K. and Heron, Dwight E. and University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA and De Andrade, Regiane S. and Lin, Chyonghiou J. and Kim, Hayeon and University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To determine the dosimetric and toxicity differences between prone and supine position intensity-modulate radiotherapy in endometrial cancer patients treated with adjuvant radiotherapy. Methods: Forty-seven consecutive endometrial cancer patients treated with adjuvant RT were analyzed. Of these, 21 were treated in prone position and 26 in the supine position. Dose-volume histograms for normal tissue structures and targets were compared between the two groups. Acute and chronic toxicity were also compared between the cohorts. Results: The percentage of volume receiving 10, 20, 30, 40, 45, and 50 Gy for small bowel was 89.5%, 69%, 33%, 12.2%, 5%, and 0% in the prone group and 87.5%, 62.7%, 26.4%, 8%, 4.3%, and 0% in the supine group, respectively. The difference was not statistically significant. The dose-volume histograms for bladder and rectum were also comparable, except for a slightly greater percentage of volume receiving 10 Gy (1.5%) and 20 Gy (5%) for the rectum in the prone group. Acute small bowel toxicities were Grade 1 in 7 patients and Grade 2 in 14 patients in the prone group vs. Grade 1 in 6 patients and Grade 2 in 19 patients in the supine group. Chronic toxicity was Grade 1 in 7 patients and Grade 3 in 1 patient in the prone group and Grade 1 in 5 patients in the supine group. Conclusion: These preliminary results suggest that no difference exists in the dose to the normal tissue and toxicity between prone and supine intensity-modulated radiotherapy for endometrial cancer. Longer follow-up and more outcome studies are needed to determine whether any differences exist between the two approaches.},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.08.067},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 2,
volume = 67,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Feb 01 00:00:00 EST 2007},
month = {Thu Feb 01 00:00:00 EST 2007}
}
  • Purpose: The target volume for Whole Breast Irradiation (WBI) is dictated by location of tumor mass, breast tissue distribution, and involvement of lymph nodes. Dose coverage and Organs at Risk (OARs) sparing can be difficult to achieve in patients with unfavorable thoracic geometries. For these cases, inverse-planned and 3D-conformal prone treatments can be alternatives to traditional supine 3D-conformal plans. A dosimetric comparison can determine which of these techniques achieve optimal target coverage while sparing OARs. Methods: This study included simulation datasets for 8 patients, 5 of whom were simulated in both supine and prone positions. Positioning devices included breast boardsmore » and Vaclok bags for the supine position, and prone breast boards for the prone position. WBI 3-D conformal plans were created for patients simulated in both positions. Additional VMAT and IMRT WBI plans were made for all patients in the supine position. Results: Prone and supine 3D conformal plans had comparable PTV coverage. Prone 3D conformal plans received a significant 50% decrease to V20, V10, V5 and V30% for the ipsilateral lung in contrast to the supine plans. The heart also experienced a 10% decrease in maximum dose in the prone position, and V20, V10, V5 and V2 had significantly lower values than the supine plan. Supine IMRT and VMAT breast plans obtained comparable PTV coverage. The heart experienced a 10% decrease in maximum dose with inverse modulated plans when compared to the supine 3D conformal plan, while V20, V10, V5 and V2 showed higher values with inverse modulated plans than with supine 3D conformal plans. Conclusion: Prone 3D-conformal, and supine inverse planned treatments were generally superior in sparing OARs to supine plans with comparable PTV coverage. IMRT and VMAT plans offer sparing of OARs from high dose regions with an increase of irradiated volume in the low dose regions.« less
  • Purpose: Many cancer centers treat colorectal patients in the prone position on a belly board to minimize dose to the small bowel. That may potentially Result in patient setup instability with corresponding impact on dose delivery accuracy for highly conformal techniques such as IMRT/VMAT. Two aims of this work are 1) to investigate setup accuracy of rectum patients treated in the prone position on a belly board using CBCT and 2) to evaluate dosimetric impact on bladder and small bowel of treating rectum patients in supine vs. prone position. Methods: For the setup accuracy study, 10 patients were selected. Weeklymore » CBCTs were acquired and matched to bone. The CBCT-determined shifts were recorded. For the dosimetric study, 7 prone-setup patients and 7 supine-setup patients were randomly selected from our clinical database. Various clinically relevant dose volume histogram values were recorded for the small bowel and bladder. Results: The CBCT-determined rotational shifts had a wide variation. For the dataset acquired at the time of this writing, the ranges of rotational setup errors for pitch, roll, and yaw were [−3.6° 4.7°], [−4.3° 3.2°], and [−1.4° 1.4°]. For the dosimetric study: the small bowel V(45Gy) and mean dose for the prone position was 5.6±12.1% and 18.4±6.2Gy (ranges indicate standard deviations); for the supine position the corresponding dose values were 12.9±15.8% and 24.7±8.8Gy. For the bladder, the V(30Gy) and mean dose for prone position were 68.7±12.7% and 38.4±3.3Gy; for supine position these dose values were 77.1±13.7% and 40.7±3.1Gy. Conclusion: There is evidence of significant rotational instability in the prone position. The OAR dosimetry study indicates that there are some patients that may still benefit from the prone position, though many patients can be safely treated supine.« less
  • Purpose: Damage to heart and lung from breast radiotherapy is associated with increased cardiovascular mortality and lung cancer development. We conducted a prospective study to evaluate which position is best to spare lung and heart from radiotherapy exposure. Methods and Materials: One hundred consecutive Stage 0-IIA breast cancer patients consented to participate in a research trial that required two computed tomography simulation scans for planning both supine and prone positions. The optimal position was defined as that which best covered the contoured breast and tumor bed while it minimized critical organ irradiation, as quantified by the in-field heart and lungmore » volume. The trial was designed to plan the first 100 patients in each position to study correlations between in-field volumes of organs at risk and dose. Results: Fifty-three left and 47 right breast cancer patients were consecutively accrued to the trial. In all patients, the prone position was optimal for sparing lung volume compared to the supine setup (mean lung volume reduction was 93.5 cc for right and 103.6 cc for left breast cancer patients). In 46/53 (87%) left breast cancer patients best treated prone, in-field heart volume was reduced by a mean of 12 cc and by 1.8 cc for the other 7/53 (13%) patients best treated supine. As predicted, supine-prone differences in in-field volume and mean dose of heart and lung were highly correlated (Spearman's correlation coefficient for left breast cancer patients was 0.90 for heart and 0.94 for lung and 0.92 for right breast cancer patients for lung). Conclusions: Prone setup reduced the amount of irradiated lung in all patients and reduced the amount of heart volume irradiated in 87% of left breast cancer patients. In-field organ volume is a valid surrogate for predicting dose; the trial continued to the planned target of 400.« less
  • Purpose/Objective: It is unknown whether the historically found dosimetric advantages of treating gynecologic cancer with the patient in a prone position with use of a small-bowel displacement device (belly-board) remain when volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) is used and whether these advantages depend on the necessary margin between clinical target volume (CTV) and planning target volume (PTV). The aim of this study is to determine the best patient position (prone or supine) in terms of sparing organs at risk (OAR) for various CTV-to-PTV margins and VMAT dose delivery. Methods and Materials: In an institutional review board—approved study, 26 patients with gynecologicmore » cancer scheduled for primary (9) or postoperative (17) radiation therapy were scanned in a prone position on a belly-board and in a supine position on the same day. The primary tumor CTV, nodal CTV, bladder, bowel, and rectum were delineated on both scans. The PTVs were created each with a different margin for the primary tumor and nodal CTV. The VMAT plans were generated with our in-house system for automated treatment planning. For all margin combinations, the supine and prone plans were compared with consideration of all OAR dose-volume parameters but with highest priority given to bowel cavity V{sub 45Gy} (cm{sup 3}). Results: For both groups, the prone position reduced the bowel cavity V{sub 45Gy}, in particular for nodal margins ≥10 mm (ΔV{sub 45Gy} = 23.9 ± 10.6 cm{sup 3}). However, for smaller margins, the advantage was much less pronounced (ΔV{sub 45Gy} = 6.5 ± 3.0 cm{sup 3}) and did not reach statistical significance. The rectum mean dose (D{sub mean}) was significantly lower (ΔD{sub mean} = 2.5 ± 0.3 Gy) in the prone position for both patient groups and for all margins, and the bladder D{sub mean} was significantly lower in the supine position (ΔD{sub mean} = 2.6 ± 0.4 Gy) only for the postoperative group. The advantage of the prone position was not present if it needed a larger margin than the supine position. Conclusion: For patients with gynecologic cancer, the historically found dosimetric advantages for the prone position remain for modern dose delivery techniques if large margins are needed. However, the advantage is lost for small margins and if the prone position needs a larger margin than the supine position.« less
  • Purpose: To compare dosimetrically four different techniques of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) in the same patient. Methods and Materials: Thirteen post-lumpectomy interstitial brachytherapy (IB) patients underwent imaging with preimplant computed tomography (CT) in the prone and supine position. These CT scans were then used to generate three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and prone and supine helical tomotherapy (PT and ST, respectively) APBI plans and compared with the treated IB plans. Dose-volume histogram analysis and the mean dose (NTD{sub mean}) values were compared. Results: Planning target volume coverage was excellent for all methods. Statistical significance was considered to be a pmore » value <0.05. The mean V100 was significantly lower for IB (12% vs. 15% for PT, 18% for ST, and 26% for 3D-CRT). A greater significant differential was seen when comparing V50 with mean values of 24%, 43%, 47%, and 52% for IB, PT, ST, and 3D-CRT, respectively. The IB and PT were similar and delivered an average lung NTD{sub mean} dose of 1.3 Gy{sub 3} and 1.2 Gy{sub 3}, respectively. Both of these methods were statistically significantly lower than the supine external beam techniques. Overall, all four methods yielded similar low doses to the heart. Conclusions: The use of IB and PT resulted in greater normal tissue sparing (especially ipsilateral breast and lung) than the use of supine external beam techniques of 3D-CRT or ST. However, the choice of APBI technique must be tailored to the patient's anatomy, lumpectomy cavity location, and overall treatment goals.« less