Muangwong Pooriwat, Tharavichitkul Ekkasit, Sripan Patumrat, Chakrabandhu Somvilai, Klunklin Pitchayaponne, Onchan Wimrak, Jia-Mahasap Bongkot, Galalae Razvan, Chitapanarux Imjai
Division of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Northern Thai Research Group of Radiation Oncology (NTRG-RO), Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2022 Aug;14(4):347-353. doi: 10.5114/jcb.2022.118940. Epub 2022 Aug 19.
Image-based brachytherapy, involving an image machine and a brachytherapy unit in the same room (in-room brachytherapy [IRBT]), limits patient movements; however, this technique may not be feasible in high workload centers. In this study, we compared changes in the dose and volume of organs at risk (OARs) with out-room brachytherapy (ORBT) technique, in which patients musted be transferred to a waiting room and then transferred back for brachytherapy delivery.
This was a randomized prospective study comparing changes in D doses and volume of OARs during IRBT and ORBT. Patients underwent CT for treatment planning (CT1) installed in brachytherapy loading room, and another CT immediately before brachytherapy (CT2) during each fraction. While patients remained on CT table after CT1 during treatment planning and delivery in IRBT arm, they were transferred out to waiting room and back to CT table in ORBT arm. CT2 was analyzed with CT1 to evaluate any changes in volumes and doses.
A total of 294 fractions of brachytherapy were considered. The findings indicated no significant differences in the mean D changes (Gy) (CT2 minus CT1) to the bladder, rectum, and sigmoid between IRBT and ORBT (mean ±SD: -0.07 ±0.36 vs. -0.01 ±0.39, = 0.1426; -0.15 ±0.32 vs. -0.14 ±0.29, = 0.8898; -0.17 ±0.38 vs. -0.19 ±0.31, = 0.5221, respectively). Moreover, significant correlations were observed between D changes and volume changes to each of OARs, < 0.001.
IRBT does not result in differences in dose changes between planning and pre-treatment imaging when compared with ORBT. Consequently, ORBT can be considered for routine practice in high workload centers. Correlations in volume change and dose change to OARs were also observed.
基于影像的近距离放射治疗,即在同一房间内配备影像设备和近距离放射治疗装置(室内近距离放射治疗[IRBT]),会限制患者活动;然而,该技术在高工作量的中心可能不可行。在本研究中,我们比较了采用室外近距离放射治疗(ORBT)技术时危及器官(OARs)的剂量和体积变化,在ORBT技术中,患者必须先被转移至候诊室,然后再被转移回来进行近距离放射治疗。
这是一项随机前瞻性研究,比较IRBT和ORBT期间OARs的剂量(D)和体积变化。患者在近距离放射治疗加载室进行用于治疗计划的CT扫描(CT1),并且在每个分次的近距离放射治疗前即刻进行另一组CT扫描(CT2)。在IRBT组的治疗计划和治疗过程中,患者在CT1扫描后留在CT检查台上,而在ORBT组中,患者被转移至候诊室然后再回到CT检查台。将CT2与CT1进行分析,以评估体积和剂量的任何变化。
共纳入294个近距离放射治疗分次。结果表明,IRBT和ORBT之间膀胱、直肠和乙状结肠的平均D变化(Gy)(CT2减去CT1)无显著差异(均值±标准差:-0.07±0.36对-0.01±0.39,P = 0.1426;-0.15±0.32对-0.14±0.29,P = 0.8898;-0.17±0.38对-0.19±0.31,P分别为0.5221)。此外,观察到每个OARs的D变化与体积变化之间存在显著相关性,P<0.001。
与ORBT相比,IRBT在计划和治疗前成像之间的剂量变化方面没有差异。因此,在高工作量的中心,ORBT可被考虑用于常规实践。还观察到OARs的体积变化和剂量变化之间的相关性。