It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the dosimetric parameters of whole-pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) for cervical cancer among plans involving 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), or spot-scanning proton therapy (SSPT). The dose distributions of 3D-CRT-, IMRT-, and SSPT-based WPRT plans were compared in 10 patients with cervical cancer. All of the patients were treated with a prescribed dose of 50.4 Gy in 1.8-Gy daily fractions, and all of the plans involved the same planning target volume (PTV) constrictions. A 3D-CRT plan involving a four-field box, an IMRT plan involving seven coplanar fields, and an SSPT plan involving four fields were created. The median PTV D95% did not differ between the 3D-CRT, IMRT and SSPT plans. The median conformity index 95% and homogeneity index of the IMRT and SSPT were better than those of the 3D-CRT. The homogeneity index of the SSPT was better than that of the IMRT. SSPT resulted in lower median V20 values for the bladder wall, small intestine, colon, bilateral femoral heads, skin, and pelvic bone than IMRT. Comparing the Dmean values, SSPT spared the small intestine, colon, bilateral femoral heads, skin and pelvic bone to a greater extent than the other modalities. SSPT can reduce the irradiated volume of the organs at risk compared with 3D-CRT and IMRT, while maintaining excellent PTV coverage. Further investigations of SSPT are warranted to assess its role in the treatment of cervical cancer.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya 462-8508, Japan; Department of Radiation Oncology, Nagoya City West Medical Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya 462-8508, Japan; Department of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya 467-8601, Japan
2 Department of Radiology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1 Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya 467-8601, Japan
3 Department of Radiation Oncology, Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya 462-8508, Japan
4 Department of Proton Therapy Technology, Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya 462-8508, Japan
5 Department of Proton Therapy Physics, Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, 1-1-1 Hirate-cho, Kita-ku, Nagoya 462-8508, Japan