COMPARISON OF TWO RADIOTHERAPY TECHNIQUES IN TREATMENT OF PATIENTS WITH DIAGNOSED INOPERABLE CERVICAL CANCER

  • Petar Chakalaroski University Clinic of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, North Macedonia
  • Violeta Klisarova University Clinic of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, North Macedonia
  • Lenche Kostadinova University Clinic of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, North Macedonia
  • Angela Dameska 1University Clinic of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, North Macedonia
  • Aleksandra Adziska Mitkov 1University Clinic of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, North Macedonia
  • Olivera Ivanova 1University Clinic of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, North Macedonia

Abstract

Advanced cervical cancer is treated with radiotherapy, target therapy, chemotherapy or a combination of those. Standardized accepted treatment of inoperable cervical cancer is concurrent chemo-radiotherapy (CCRT) followed by brachytherapy. Radiotherapy techniques used are three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). In this study participated 30 female patients, average age of 52 at the time of irradiation.3D-CRT plans were made, patients were treated on linear accelerator (LINAC) with 3D-CRT. IMRT plans were made additionally. Planning target volume (PTV) dose coverage was 105.36% for 3D-CRT and 105.64% for IMRT. Homogeneity index (HI) was 0.062 for 3D-CRT and 0.048 for IMRT. Conformity index (CI) for 3D-CRT was 1.93 for PTV of 2990.77 ccm. CI for IMRT  was 1.305 for PTV of 2019.83 ccm. Bladder V40 (%) for 3D-CRT averaged 96.61%, while IMRT averaged 73.11%. Rectal V50 (%) for 3D-CRT was 72.55% and for IMRT was 17.80%. Rectal V40 (%) for 3D-CRT and IMRT averaged 92.12% and 73.49% respectively. Quantitative Analysis of normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC) – V45 for 3D-CRT was 228.80ccm and for IMRT was 104.55ccm. Femoral heads dose for 3D-CRT was 51.50Gy for left and 51.29Gy for right. Absorbed doses for IMRT were 47.28Gy for left and 47.32Gy for right femoral head, respectively. 13 patients had grade 1 cystitis and urethritis, 2 with grade 2. 7 patients developed grade 1 diarrhea, 1 with grade 2. It can be concluded that dosimetrically IMRT is superior to 3D-CRT in patients treating cervical cancer.


Keywords: cervical cancer, 3D-CRT, IMRT.


 

References

1. Elson DA, Riley RR, Lacey A, Thordarson G, Talamantes FJ, Arbeit JM. Sensitivity of the cervical transformation zone to estrogen-induced squamous carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 2000; p.1267-75.
2. Kumar V, Abbas AK, Fausto N, Mitchell RN. Robbins Basic Pathology. 8th ed. Saunders Elsevier; 2007; p. 718–721.
3. Halperin EC, Brady LW, Wazer DE, Perez CA. Perez & Brady's Principles and Practice of Radiation Oncology, 6th ed. LWW, 2013; p. 1365-66.
4. ECIS – European Cancer Information System, Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in 2020, for all countries, https://ecis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/explorer.php?$0-0$1-All$4-2$3-30$6-0,85$5-2008,2008$7-7,8$2-All$CEstByCountry$X0_8-3$X0_19-AE27$X0_20-No$CEstBySexByCountry$X13$X1_19-AE27$X1_-1-1$CEstByIndiByCountry$X2_8-3$X2_19-AEE$X2_20-No$CEstRelative$X3_8-3$X3_9-AEE$X3_19 AEE$CEstByCountryTable$X4_19-AE27
5. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Cervical Cancer. V 3.2013. Available from http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/cervical.pdf.
6. Jhingran, A, Eifel, P, Glob. libr. women's med., 2008; DOI 10.3843/GLOWM.10234. Available
http://www.glowm.com/section_view/heading/Radiation%20
Therapy%20for%20Cervical%20Carcinoma/item/234.
7. Thakur P, Revannasiddaiah S, Rastogi M, Gupta MK, Seam RK, Gupta M. Uncertainty concerning the 4-field box technique for Stage-IB2 carcinoma of the uterine cervix. J Med Phys. 2013;38(1):41-43. doi:10.4103/0971-6203.106604.
8. Palma DA, Verbakel WF, Otto K., Senan S. New developments in arc radiation therapy, a reviw. Cancer treat Res. 2010; 36: 393-399.
9. Semmelweis University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiology and Oncotherapy / Department of Nuclear MedicineMedical imaging, IMRT Techniques. Available from: http://oftankonyv.reak.bme.hu/tiki-index.php?page=IMRT+Techniques
10. Otto K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys. 2008; 35: 310–317
11.Hellebust TP, Kirisits C., Berger D., et al. Recommendations from Gynaecological (GYN) GEC-ESTRO working group: considerations and pitfalls In commissioning and applicator reconstruction in 3D image-based treatment planning of cervix cancer brachytherapy, Radiother Oncol, (96). 2010; p. 153–160.
12. Fabri, V., Queiroz, A., Mantoan, H., Sanches, S., Guimarães, A., Ribeiro, A., Souza, R., Maya, J., Santos, E., Castro, F., Lima, J., Chen, M., Baiocchi, G. and da Costa, A. The Impact of Addition of Consolidation Chemotherapy to Standard Cisplatin-Based Chemoradiotherapy in Uterine Cervical Cancer: Matter of Distant Relapse. Journal of Oncology, 2019; pp.1-9.
13. Zuppone S, Bresolin A, Spinelli AE, et al. Pre-clinical Research on Bladder Toxicity After Radiotherapy for Pelvic Cancers: State-of-the Art and Challenges. Front Oncol. 2020;10:527121. 2020 Oct 22. doi:10.3389/fonc.2020.527121.
14. Grodsky MB, Sidani SM. Radiation proctopathy. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2015;28:103-111.
15. Kwak YK, Lee SW, Kay CS, Park HH. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy reduces gastrointestinal toxicity in pelvic radiation therapy with moderate dose. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0183339. 2017 Aug 28. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183339.
16. Sharma N Sr, Gupta M, Joseph D, Gupta S, Pasricha R, Ahuja R, Krishnan AS, T S A, Raut S, Sikdar D. A Prospective Randomized Study of Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Versus Three- Dimensional Conformal Radiation Therapy With Concurrent Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Carcinoma Cervix. Cureus. 2022;14(1):e21000. doi: 10.7759/cureus.21000.
Published
2022-08-31
How to Cite
CHAKALAROSKI, Petar et al. COMPARISON OF TWO RADIOTHERAPY TECHNIQUES IN TREATMENT OF PATIENTS WITH DIAGNOSED INOPERABLE CERVICAL CANCER. Journal of Morphological Sciences, [S.l.], v. 5, n. 2, p. 30-37, aug. 2022. ISSN 2545-4706. Available at: <https://jms.mk/jms/article/view/vol5no2-6>. Date accessed: 25 sep. 2022.
Section
Articles