Comparison of rectal volume definition techniques and their influence on rectal toxicity in patients with prostate cancer treated with 3D conformal radiotherapy: a dose-volume analysis

• Published in: Radiation oncology (London, England) Vol. 4; no. 14; p. 14
• Main Authors: Onal, Cem, Topkan, Erkan, Efe, Esma, Yavuz, Melek, Sonmez, Serhat, Yavuz, Aydin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 11-05-2009; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Adenocarcinoma - radiotherapy; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Care and treatment; Diagnosis; Health aspects; Humans; Male; Prostate cancer; Prostatic Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Protein Structure, Secondary; Radiography; Radiotherapy; Radiotherapy - adverse effects; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods; Radiotherapy, Conformal; Rectum - anatomy & histology; Rectum - diagnostic imaging; Rectum - radiation effects; Three-dimensional display systems; Turkey
• ISSN: 1748-717X; 1748-717X
• DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-4-14

To evaluate the impact of four different rectum contouring techniques and rectal toxicities in patients with treated with 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT).
Clinical and dosimetric data were evaluated for 94 patients who received a total dose 3DCRT of 70 Gy, and rectal doses were compared in four different rectal contouring techniques: the prostate-containing CT sections (method 1); 1 cm above and below the planning target volume (PTV) (method 2); 110 mm starting from the anal verge (method 3); and from the anal verge to the sigmoid flexure (method 4). The percentage of rectal volume receiving RT doses (30-70 Gy) and minimum, mean rectal doses were assessed.
Median age was 69 years. Percentage of rectal volume receiving high doses (>or= 70 Gy) were higher with the techniques that contoured smaller rectal volumes. In methods 2 and 3, the percentage of rectal volume receiving >or= 70 Gy was significantly higher in patients with than without rectal bleeding (method 2: 30.8% vs. 22.5%, respectively (p = 0.03); method 3: 26.9% vs. 18.1%, respectively (p = 0.006)). Mean rectal dose was significant predictor of rectal bleeding only in method 3 (48.8 Gy in patients with bleeding vs. 44.4 Gy in patients without bleeding; p = 0.02).
Different techniques of rectal contouring significantly influence the calculation of radiation doses to the rectum and the prediction of rectal toxicity. Rectal volume receiving higher doses (>or= 70 Gy) and mean rectal doses may significantly predict rectal bleeding for techniques contouring larger rectal volumes, as was in method 3.