Comparison of the belly board device method and the distended bladder method for reducing irradiated small bowel volumes in preoperative radiotherapy of rectal cancer patients.

PURPOSE

To determine the most effective method to reduce the irradiated small bowel volume when using a belly board device (BBD), a distended bladder (DB), or both in patients with rectal cancer undergoing preoperative pelvic radiotherapy (RT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The study involved 20 patients with rectal cancer who were scheduled to receive preoperative pelvic RT. Patients were asked to empty their bladders and then drink 300 mL of water 2 h before the treatment planning computed tomographic (CT) scan. To identify the small bowel, an oral contrast solution (450 mL) was given 1 h before the CT scan. Two sets of transverse images were taken at 1-cm-thickness intervals with patients in the prone position with or without the BBD. After voiding, two additional sets of CT scans were obtained in prone positions with or without BBD. The conventional three-field treatment plan, composed of a 6-MV photon posterior-anterior field and 15-MV photon opposed lateral fields with wedges of 45 degrees, was made using a three-dimensional treatment planning system. The beam weights of the three-field plan were equal. The volume of irradiated small bowel was calculated for doses between 10% and 100% of the prescribed dose at 10% intervals. For each 10% dose increment, the effect of the BBD and the DB on the irradiated volume was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon signed rank, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

RESULTS

All patients underwent four sets of CT scan under the conditions of four different methods as follows: Group I = empty bladder without the use of belly board; Group II = empty bladder with the use of belly board; Group III = distended bladder without the use of belly board; Group IV = distended bladder with the use of belly board. We found that the volume of irradiated small bowel decreased in the order of Group I, Group II, Group III, and Group IV at all dose levels (p < 0.05). Compared with Group I, the mean volume reduction rate (reduced volume) of irradiated small bowel in Group II varied between 14.5% and 65.4% (15.5-80.4 cm(3)), in Group III it varied between 48.1% and 82.0% (21.6-163.1 cm(3)), and in Group IV between 51.4% and 96.4% (28.6-167.1 cm(3)).

CONCLUSIONS

The DB was more effective than the BBD for reducing the volume of irradiated small bowel in rectal cancer patients receiving pelvic RT. The combination of the BBD and DB showed an additive effect and was the most effective method for reducing the irradiated small bowel volume.