Comparison of three strategies to delineate the bowel for whole pelvis IMRT of prostate cancer

Giuseppe Sanguineti, Michael Little, Eugene J. Endres, Maria Pia Sormani, Brent Parker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

44 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare three different contouring approaches of the bowel before and during whole pelvis IMRT of localized prostate cancer. Materials: Nine patients were randomly selected among those treated for localized prostate cancer at UTMB from March 2004 to August 2006. On the planning CT, besides the usual organs at risk (OAR), for each patient we contoured the bowel according to three different definitions: each bowel segment ('BS'); 'BS+1', BS uniformly expanded by 1 cm; intestinal cavity ('IC') or the 'container' of the bowel loops up to the pelvic/abdominal walls. For each patient we generated three rival plans each considering a different bowel definition, otherwise identical. Provided that the same target coverage and other OAR spare had been achieved, plans were compared for their ability to minimize bowel dose at planning. Furthermore, after co-registering 6 weekly CT to the initial planning CT for each patient, we investigated which of the three definitions would allow the best bowel protection also during treatment. Results: All definitions provided a very similar average bowel DVH at planning. During treatment BS allowed an average ≈20 cc more of bowel to receive at least 45 Gy over BS+1 and IC (p = 0.008 and 0.029, respectively); on the contrary bowel V45 between IC and BS+1 were not significantly different (p = 0.65). Conclusion: A definition that takes into account internal organ motion is warranted to maximize bowel protection during treatment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)95-101
Number of pages7
JournalRadiotherapy and Oncology
Volume88
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2008

Fingerprint

Pelvis
Prostatic Neoplasms
Organs at Risk
Abdominal Wall
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Bowel loops
  • IMRT
  • Whole pelvis radiotherapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Urology

Cite this

Comparison of three strategies to delineate the bowel for whole pelvis IMRT of prostate cancer. / Sanguineti, Giuseppe; Little, Michael; Endres, Eugene J.; Sormani, Maria Pia; Parker, Brent.

In: Radiotherapy and Oncology, Vol. 88, No. 1, 07.2008, p. 95-101.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sanguineti, Giuseppe ; Little, Michael ; Endres, Eugene J. ; Sormani, Maria Pia ; Parker, Brent. / Comparison of three strategies to delineate the bowel for whole pelvis IMRT of prostate cancer. In: Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2008 ; Vol. 88, No. 1. pp. 95-101.
@article{14264b8eeb8e4624a454956a585a4d09,
title = "Comparison of three strategies to delineate the bowel for whole pelvis IMRT of prostate cancer",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare three different contouring approaches of the bowel before and during whole pelvis IMRT of localized prostate cancer. Materials: Nine patients were randomly selected among those treated for localized prostate cancer at UTMB from March 2004 to August 2006. On the planning CT, besides the usual organs at risk (OAR), for each patient we contoured the bowel according to three different definitions: each bowel segment ('BS'); 'BS+1', BS uniformly expanded by 1 cm; intestinal cavity ('IC') or the 'container' of the bowel loops up to the pelvic/abdominal walls. For each patient we generated three rival plans each considering a different bowel definition, otherwise identical. Provided that the same target coverage and other OAR spare had been achieved, plans were compared for their ability to minimize bowel dose at planning. Furthermore, after co-registering 6 weekly CT to the initial planning CT for each patient, we investigated which of the three definitions would allow the best bowel protection also during treatment. Results: All definitions provided a very similar average bowel DVH at planning. During treatment BS allowed an average ≈20 cc more of bowel to receive at least 45 Gy over BS+1 and IC (p = 0.008 and 0.029, respectively); on the contrary bowel V45 between IC and BS+1 were not significantly different (p = 0.65). Conclusion: A definition that takes into account internal organ motion is warranted to maximize bowel protection during treatment.",
keywords = "Bowel loops, IMRT, Whole pelvis radiotherapy",
author = "Giuseppe Sanguineti and Michael Little and Endres, {Eugene J.} and Sormani, {Maria Pia} and Brent Parker",
year = "2008",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.radonc.2008.01.015",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "88",
pages = "95--101",
journal = "Radiotherapy and Oncology",
issn = "0167-8140",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of three strategies to delineate the bowel for whole pelvis IMRT of prostate cancer

AU - Sanguineti, Giuseppe

AU - Little, Michael

AU - Endres, Eugene J.

AU - Sormani, Maria Pia

AU - Parker, Brent

PY - 2008/7

Y1 - 2008/7

N2 - Purpose: To compare three different contouring approaches of the bowel before and during whole pelvis IMRT of localized prostate cancer. Materials: Nine patients were randomly selected among those treated for localized prostate cancer at UTMB from March 2004 to August 2006. On the planning CT, besides the usual organs at risk (OAR), for each patient we contoured the bowel according to three different definitions: each bowel segment ('BS'); 'BS+1', BS uniformly expanded by 1 cm; intestinal cavity ('IC') or the 'container' of the bowel loops up to the pelvic/abdominal walls. For each patient we generated three rival plans each considering a different bowel definition, otherwise identical. Provided that the same target coverage and other OAR spare had been achieved, plans were compared for their ability to minimize bowel dose at planning. Furthermore, after co-registering 6 weekly CT to the initial planning CT for each patient, we investigated which of the three definitions would allow the best bowel protection also during treatment. Results: All definitions provided a very similar average bowel DVH at planning. During treatment BS allowed an average ≈20 cc more of bowel to receive at least 45 Gy over BS+1 and IC (p = 0.008 and 0.029, respectively); on the contrary bowel V45 between IC and BS+1 were not significantly different (p = 0.65). Conclusion: A definition that takes into account internal organ motion is warranted to maximize bowel protection during treatment.

AB - Purpose: To compare three different contouring approaches of the bowel before and during whole pelvis IMRT of localized prostate cancer. Materials: Nine patients were randomly selected among those treated for localized prostate cancer at UTMB from March 2004 to August 2006. On the planning CT, besides the usual organs at risk (OAR), for each patient we contoured the bowel according to three different definitions: each bowel segment ('BS'); 'BS+1', BS uniformly expanded by 1 cm; intestinal cavity ('IC') or the 'container' of the bowel loops up to the pelvic/abdominal walls. For each patient we generated three rival plans each considering a different bowel definition, otherwise identical. Provided that the same target coverage and other OAR spare had been achieved, plans were compared for their ability to minimize bowel dose at planning. Furthermore, after co-registering 6 weekly CT to the initial planning CT for each patient, we investigated which of the three definitions would allow the best bowel protection also during treatment. Results: All definitions provided a very similar average bowel DVH at planning. During treatment BS allowed an average ≈20 cc more of bowel to receive at least 45 Gy over BS+1 and IC (p = 0.008 and 0.029, respectively); on the contrary bowel V45 between IC and BS+1 were not significantly different (p = 0.65). Conclusion: A definition that takes into account internal organ motion is warranted to maximize bowel protection during treatment.

KW - Bowel loops

KW - IMRT

KW - Whole pelvis radiotherapy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=45849128005&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=45849128005&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.01.015

DO - 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.01.015

M3 - Article

C2 - 18262671

AN - SCOPUS:45849128005

VL - 88

SP - 95

EP - 101

JO - Radiotherapy and Oncology

JF - Radiotherapy and Oncology

SN - 0167-8140

IS - 1

ER -