Testing the new ICRU 62 ‘Planning Organ at Risk Volume’ concept for the rectum

详细信息	查看全文 | 推荐本文 |

• 作者：Ludvig Paul Muren ; Á ; sa Karlsdottir ; Yngve Kvinnsland ; Tore Wentzel-Larsen and Olav Dahl
• 刊名：Radiotherapy and Oncology
• 出版年：2005
• 期刊代码：231_01678140
• 类别：med
• 出版时间：2005
• 卷：75
• 期：3
• 页码：293-302
• 文件大小：629 K

摘要

Background and purpose

To study the impact of the new ICRU 62 ‘Planning organ at Risk Volume’ (PRV) concept on the relationship between rectum dose-volume histogram (DVH) data and toxicity.

Patients and methods

The acute gastro-intestinal (GI) RTOG toxicity in 127 prostate cancer patients prescribed a total dose of 70 Gy with conformal irradiation to either the prostate, the prostate and seminal vesicles or the whole pelvis (initial 50 Gy only) were analysed. DVHs were derived for the rectum only and for rectum extended with six PRV margin sets (narrow/intermediate/wide; anterior/anterior and posterior). The data was analysed using permutation tests, logistic regression and effective uniform dose (EUD) calculations.

Results

Acute Grade 2 GI toxicity was seen in 22 of 127 cases (17%). Permutation tests showed that the difference between DVHs for patients with and without Grade 2 effects was significant, both for rectum only and rectum PRVs (P-value range: 0.02–0.04), with generally lower P-values for the PRVs. In the logistic regression, the fractional DVH variables (i.e. volumes) were significantly related to toxicity, with approximately 2–3 times as many significant dose levels for the PRVs as for rectum only. E.g. with wide anterior and posterior margins (16 and 11 mm, respectively) the relation was significant at 26 different dose levels (6–7, 13–14, 35–43, 60–71 and 73 Gy), compared to nine levels (38–40, 43–44 and 71–74 Gy) for rectum only. EUDs were significantly different for patients with and without Grade 2 effects both for rectum only and the PRVs (95%confidence interval for EUD increase with Grade 2 effects: 0.1–3.1 Gy).

Conclusions

All statistical methods applied indicated a small, but definite difference in DVH parameters between patients with versus those without Grade 2 effects. The difference was most pronounced when margins of 16 mm anterior and 11 mm posterior were applied.