Joseph Kurian, Liu Derek, Severin Diane, Dickey Mike, Polkosnik Lee-Anne, Warkentin Heather, Mihai Alina, Ghosh Sunita, Field Colin
Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, and Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Division of Medical Physics, Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, and Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015 Mar-Apr;5(2):e95-102. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2014.07.004. Epub 2014 Sep 10.
This study evaluated the dosimetric effect of small bowel oral contrast on conventional radiation therapy, linear accelerator-based intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and helical tomotherapy (HT) treatment plans.
Thirteen patients with rectal cancer underwent computed tomography (CT) simulation with oral contrast (CCT) in preparation for chemoradiation therapy. The contrast in the small bowel was contoured, and a noncontrast CT scan (NCCT) was simulated by reassigning a CT number of 0 Hounsfield units to the contrast volume. Conventional, IMRT, and HT plans were generated with the CCT. The plan generated on the CCT was then recalculated on the NCCT, maintaining the same number of monitor units for each field, and the plans were not renormalized. Dosimetric parameters representing coverage of the planning target volume with 45 Gy (D98%, D95%, D50%, and D2%) and sparing of the bladder and peritoneal cavity (D50%, D30%, and D10%) were recorded. The ratio of dose calculated in the presence of contrast to dose with contrast edited out was recorded for each parameter. A paired Student t test was used for comparison of plans.
For conventional plans, there was <0.1% variance in the dose ratio for all volumes of interest. For IMRT plans, there was a 1% decrease in the mean dose ratio, and the range of dose ratios for all volumes was greater than that for HT or conventional plans. For HT plans, for all volumes of interest, the mean dose ratio was <0.2%, and the range for all patients was <1%. For all IMRT dosimetric parameters, the difference was in the order of 1% of the mean dose (P < .05). The dose difference was not statistically significant for the conventional or HT plans.
The use of CCT during CT simulation has no clinically significant effect on dose calculations for conventional, IMRT, and HT treatment plans and may not require replacement of the contrast with a CT number of 0 Hounsfield units.
