Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Cervical cancer treatment with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is challenged by uterine motion, which may compromise target coverage. Daily cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) allows quantification of inter-fraction displacement and may facilitate adaptive treatment strategies. Objective: To quantify inter-fraction uterine displacement in cervical cancer patients undergoing EBRT using daily CBCT and evaluate its relationship with bladder volume and patient-specific factors. Method: This prospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary oncology center in Karachi, Pakistan, after ethical approval. Six patients with intact cervical cancer receiving definitive chemoradiation were recruited through consecutive sampling. Daily pre-treatment CBCT scans were registered with planning CT images to measure uterine displacement in the anterior–posterior (AP), superior–inferior (SI), and right–left (RL) directions. Descriptive statistics were reported as mean ± standard deviation. Pearson correlation was used to assess relationships between variables, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Analysis was performed using SPSS version 22. Results: A total of 150 CBCT scans were analyzed. Mean uterine displacement was greatest in the AP direction (0.96 ± 0.22 cm), followed by SI (0.92 ± 0.17 cm) and RL (0.90 ± 0.13 cm). Maximum recorded displacements were 1.27 cm, 1.30 cm, and 1.19 cm in the AP, SI, and RL directions, respectively. Mean bladder volume during treatment was 330.75 ± 52.95 cm³. AP displacement demonstrated a moderate positive correlation with bladder volume that did not reach statistical significance (r = 0.357, p?0.08). Greater uterine motion was observed among younger, higher-BMI, and multiparous patients. Motion variability was highest during treatment fractions 10–20. Conclusion: Uterine motion during EBRT is direction-dependent and influenced by organ filling and patient-specific factors. Daily CBCT supports accurate motion assessment and may facilitate individualized margin design and adaptive radiotherapy approaches.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: