Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the safety of focal dose escalation to regions with standardized uptake value (SUV) >2.0 using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) by comparison of radiotherapy plans using dose-volume histograms (DVHs) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer METHODS: First, we performed conventional radiotherapy with 40 Gy/20 fr. (CRT 40 Gy) for 12 patients with postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer, and then we performed FDG-PET/CT radiotherapy planning for those patients. We defined the regions with SUV > 2.0 as biological target volume (BTV) and made three boost plans for each patient: 1) CRT boost plan, 2) IMRT without dose-painting boost plan, and 3) IMRT with dose-painting boost plan. The total boost dose was 20 Gy. In IMRT with dose-painting boost plan, we increased the dose for BTV+5 mm by 30% of the prescribed dose. We added CRT boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 1), IMRT without dose-painting boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 2) and IMRT with dose-painting boost plan to CRT 40 Gy (summed plan 3), and we compared those plans using DVHs and NTCP. RESULTS: D(mean) of PTV-PET and that of PTV-CT were 26.5 Gy and 21.3 Gy, respectively. V50 of small bowel PRV in summed plan 1 was significantly higher than those in other plans ((summed plan 1 vs. summed plan 2 vs. summed plan 3: 47.11 +/- 45.33 cm3 vs. 40.63 +/- 39.13 cm3 vs. 41.25 +/- 39.96 cm3 (p < 0.01, respectively)). There were no significant differences in V30, V40, V60, D(mean) or NTCP of small bowel PRV. CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET-guided IMRT can facilitate focal dose-escalation to regions with SUV above 2.0 for postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jingu et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: