The superiority of 3D planning and the use of multiple field techniques allow more selective delivery ot radiotherapy in the majority of patients. In pelvic irradiation of very thin patients, however, some centers still use the parallel opposed field technique, due to its economic and logistic benefits and doubtful advantage of more sophisticated techniques. This study compares dose distribution for various treatment techniques in cervical or endometrial cancer patients with AP diameter of less than 20 cm. Material and methods In 6 patients CT-based 3D treatment planning was conducted using 4-field “box” technique. For study purposes, 2D simulation portals were also obtained for parallel opposed fields and 4-field “box” techniques. All plans were prepared both for Cobalt-60 unit (Co) and for 9 or 18 MV photons generated by linear accelerator (LA). The median fields’ area and the dose-volume histograms for critical organs’ including bladder, rectum and small intestine were compared for three treatment methods and for all energies. The 2D portals were transferred into 3D system to assess the accuracy of PTV (primary tumor and nodal areas) coverage. Results On average, 3D AP/PA and lateral fields were 76 cm 2 (23%) and 43 cm 2 (16%) bigger than 2D portals, respectively. Bladder volume covered by 95% isodose was similar with all methods, while both 2D and 3D “box” technique spared additional 10–14% the of rectum volume. The small intestine volume covered by 95% isodose was similar in 2D-plans (with both 2- and 4-field techniques), while 3D planning spared additional 10% volume. The mean dose for bladder was 98% for all plans. Up to 10% of the rectum was spared in standard 4-field and Co conformal plans as compared to 14% in LA conformal plans. Median small intestine doses were 76%, 84% and 76% for 2D 2-, 4-fields and conformal fields, respectively. PTV was not covered effectively with 2D Co 2 fields, LA 2 fields and with Co box technique in 5, 1 and 5 pts, respectively. Conclusion The standard target volume defined on CT scans is not covered effecively by 2-field and Co 2D 4-field plans. 4-field plans allows for better sparing of the rectum. 3D planning does not allow for better bladder protection, but spares additional volume of the rectum and small intestine.
Read full abstract