Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Effect of intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy on second cancer risk in the postoperative treatment of endometrial and cervical cancer


Zwahlen, D R; Ruben, J D; Jones, P; Gagliardi, F; Millar, J L; Schneider, U (2009). Effect of intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy on second cancer risk in the postoperative treatment of endometrial and cervical cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, 74(2):539-545.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To estimate and compare intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) in terms of second cancer risk (SCR) for postoperative treatment of endometrial and cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: To estimate SCR, the organ equivalent dose concept with a linear-exponential, a plateau, and a linear dose-response model was applied to dose distributions, calculated in a planning computed tomography scan of a 68-year-old woman. Three plans were computed: four-field 18-MV 3DCRT and nine-field IMRT with 6- and 18-MV photons. SCR was estimated as a function of target dose (50.4 Gy/28 fractions) in organs of interest according to the International Commission on Radiological Protection. RESULTS: Cumulative SCR relative to 3DCRT was +6% (3% for a plateau model, -4% for a linear model) for 6-MV IMRT and +26% (25%, 4%) for the 18-MV IMRT plan. For an organ within the primary beam, SCR was +12% (0%, -12%) for 6-MV and +5% (-2%, -7%) for 18-MV IMRT. 18-MV IMRT increased SCR 6-7 times for organs away from the primary beam relative to 3DCRT and 6-MV IMRT. Skin SCR increased by 22-37% for 6-MV and 50-69% for 18-MV IMRT inasmuch as a larger volume of skin was exposed. CONCLUSION: Cancer risk after IMRT for cervical and endometrial cancer is dependent on treatment energy. 6-MV pelvic IMRT represents a safe alternative with respect to SCR relative to 3DCRT, independently of the dose-response model. 18-MV IMRT produces second neutrons that modestly increase the SCR.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To estimate and compare intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) in terms of second cancer risk (SCR) for postoperative treatment of endometrial and cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: To estimate SCR, the organ equivalent dose concept with a linear-exponential, a plateau, and a linear dose-response model was applied to dose distributions, calculated in a planning computed tomography scan of a 68-year-old woman. Three plans were computed: four-field 18-MV 3DCRT and nine-field IMRT with 6- and 18-MV photons. SCR was estimated as a function of target dose (50.4 Gy/28 fractions) in organs of interest according to the International Commission on Radiological Protection. RESULTS: Cumulative SCR relative to 3DCRT was +6% (3% for a plateau model, -4% for a linear model) for 6-MV IMRT and +26% (25%, 4%) for the 18-MV IMRT plan. For an organ within the primary beam, SCR was +12% (0%, -12%) for 6-MV and +5% (-2%, -7%) for 18-MV IMRT. 18-MV IMRT increased SCR 6-7 times for organs away from the primary beam relative to 3DCRT and 6-MV IMRT. Skin SCR increased by 22-37% for 6-MV and 50-69% for 18-MV IMRT inasmuch as a larger volume of skin was exposed. CONCLUSION: Cancer risk after IMRT for cervical and endometrial cancer is dependent on treatment energy. 6-MV pelvic IMRT represents a safe alternative with respect to SCR relative to 3DCRT, independently of the dose-response model. 18-MV IMRT produces second neutrons that modestly increase the SCR.

Statistics

Citations

23 citations in Web of Science®
29 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

1 download since deposited on 24 Aug 2009
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, further contribution
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Radiation Oncology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2009
Deposited On:24 Aug 2009 08:44
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 13:19
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0360-3016
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.01.051
PubMed ID:19427555

Download