Understanding the impact of pelvic organ motion on dose delivered to target volumes during IMRT for cervical cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 122 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gemma Eminowicz ◽  
Vasilis Rompokos ◽  
Christopher Stacey ◽  
Lisa Hall ◽  
Mary McCormack
2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (9) ◽  
pp. e85-e91 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Eminowicz ◽  
J. Motlib ◽  
S. Khan ◽  
C. Perna ◽  
M. McCormack

2020 ◽  
Vol 93 (1114) ◽  
pp. 20190564
Author(s):  
Vikneswary Batumalai ◽  
Siobhan Burke ◽  
Dale Roach ◽  
Karen Lim ◽  
Glen Dinsdale ◽  
...  

Objectives: The use of MRI is becoming more prevalent in cervical cancer external beam radiotherapy (RT). The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of dosimetric differences between CT and MRI-derived target volumes for cervical cancer external beam RT. Methods: An automated planning technique for volumetric modulated arc therapy was developed. Two automated planning plans were generated for 18 cervical cancer patients where planning target volumes (PTVs) were generated based on CT or MRI data alone. Dose metrics for planning target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) were compared to analyse any differences based on imaging modality. Results: All treatment plans were clinically acceptable. Bladder doses (V40) were lower in MRI-based plans (p = 0.04, 53.6 ± 17.2 % vs 60.3 ± 13.1 % for MRI vs CT, respectively). The maximum dose for left iliac crest showed lower doses in CT-based plans (p = 0.02, 47.8 ± 0.7 Gy vs 47.4 ± 0.4 Gy MRI vs CT, respectively). No significant differences were seen for other OARs. Conclusions: The dosimetric differences of CT- and MRI-based contouring variability for this study was small. CT remains the standard imaging modality for volume delineation for these patients. Advances in knowledge: This is the first study to evaluate the dosimetric implications of imaging modality on target and OAR doses in cervical cancer external beam RT.


Author(s):  
L. van de Bunt ◽  
U.A. van der Heide ◽  
M. Ketelaars ◽  
G.A. de Kort ◽  
I.M. Jurgenliemk-Schulz

2016 ◽  
Vol 119 ◽  
pp. S339-S340
Author(s):  
G. Eminowicz ◽  
J. Motlib ◽  
S. Khan ◽  
C. Perna ◽  
M. McCormack

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. e239706
Author(s):  
Catarina Estevinho ◽  
Ana Portela Carvalho ◽  
Ana Rita Pinto ◽  
Fernanda Costa

Author(s):  
Alejandra Castanon ◽  
Matejka Rebolj ◽  
Francesca Pesola ◽  
Peter Sasieni

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted cervical cancer screening services. Assuming increases to screening capacity are unrealistic, we propose two recovery strategies: one extends the screening interval by 6 months for all and the other extends the interval by 36/60 months, but only for women who have already missed being screened. Methods Using routine statistics from England we estimate the number of women affected by delays to screening. We used published research to estimate the proportion of screening age women with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and progression rates to cancer. Under two recovery scenarios, we estimate the impact of COVID-19 on cervical cancer over one screening cycle (3 years at ages 25–49 and 5 years at ages 50–64 years). The duration of disruption in both scenarios is 6 months. In the first scenario, 10.7 million women have their screening interval extended by 6 months. In the second, 1.5 million women (those due to be screened during the disruption) miss one screening cycle, but most women have no delay. Results Both scenarios result in similar numbers of excess cervical cancers: 630 vs. 632 (both 4.3 per 100,000 women in the population). However, the scenario in which some women miss one screening cycle creates inequalities—they would have much higher rates of excess cancer: 41.5 per 100,000 delayed for screened women compared to those with a 6-month delay (5.9 per 100,000). Conclusion To ensure equity for those affected by COVID-19 related screening delays additional screening capacity will need to be paired with prioritising the screening of overdue women.


Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 126 (21) ◽  
pp. 4697-4705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandra Gatti ◽  
Rei Haruyama ◽  
Laurie Elit ◽  
Scott C. Howard ◽  
Catherine G. Lam ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document