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}
}