Search

Contains fulltext : 48236.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of the quality of involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT) on clinical outcome in patients with advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) in complete remission (CR) after six to eight cycles of mechlorethamine, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone-doxorubicin, bleomycin, and vinblastine (MOPP-ABV) chemotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective review of clinical and radiologic data, radiation charts, simulator films, and megavoltage (MV) photographs was performed. IFRT consisted of 24 Gy to all initially involved nodal areas and 16-24 Gy to all initially involved extranodal sites. Major violations were defined as no or only partial irradiation of an originally involved area, or a total dose <90% of the prescribed dose. RESULTS: Of the 739 patients who were enrolled in the trial between 1989 and 2000, 57% achieved a CR; 152 of 172 patients randomized to IFRT actually received radiotherapy; and in 135 patients, quality control was performed. The overall major violation rate was 47%, predominantly concerning target volumes. The total dose was correct in 81% of the patients. After a median follow-up of 6.5 years, there was no difference in cumulative failure rate between patients with or without major violations. There was no relationship between incidence or site of relapse and major protocol violations. CONCLUSION: In advanced-stage HL patients in complete remission after six to eight cycles of MOPP-ABV, the outcome was not influenced by violation of the radiotherapy protocol.

Contains fulltext : 48236.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of the quality of involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT) on clinical outcome in patients with advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) in complete remission (CR) after six to eight cycles of mechlorethamine, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone-doxorubicin, bleomycin, and vinblastine (MOPP-ABV) chemotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective review of clinical and radiologic data, radiation charts, simulator films, and megavoltage (MV) photographs was performed. IFRT consisted of 24 Gy to all initially involved nodal areas and 16-24 Gy to all initially involved extranodal sites. Major violations were defined as no or only partial irradiation of an originally involved area, or a total dose <90% of the prescribed dose. RESULTS: Of the 739 patients who were enrolled in the trial between 1989 and 2000, 57% achieved a CR; 152 of 172 patients randomized to IFRT actually received radiotherapy; and in 135 patients, quality control was performed. The overall major violation rate was 47%, predominantly concerning target volumes. The total dose was correct in 81% of the patients. After a median follow-up of 6.5 years, there was no difference in cumulative failure rate between patients with or without major violations. There was no relationship between incidence or site of relapse and major protocol violations. CONCLUSION: In advanced-stage HL patients in complete remission after six to eight cycles of MOPP-ABV, the outcome was not influenced by violation of the radiotherapy protocol.

Contains fulltext : 48236.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of the quality of involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT) on clinical outcome in patients with advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) in complete remission (CR) after six to eight cycles of mechlorethamine, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone-doxorubicin, bleomycin, and vinblastine (MOPP-ABV) chemotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective review of clinical and radiologic data, radiation charts, simulator films, and megavoltage (MV) photographs was performed. IFRT consisted of 24 Gy to all initially involved nodal areas and 16-24 Gy to all initially involved extranodal sites. Major violations were defined as no or only partial irradiation of an originally involved area, or a total dose <90% of the prescribed dose. RESULTS: Of the 739 patients who were enrolled in the trial between 1989 and 2000, 57% achieved a CR; 152 of 172 patients randomized to IFRT actually received radiotherapy; and in 135 patients, quality control was performed. The overall major violation rate was 47%, predominantly concerning target volumes. The total dose was correct in 81% of the patients. After a median follow-up of 6.5 years, there was no difference in cumulative failure rate between patients with or without major violations. There was no relationship between incidence or site of relapse and major protocol violations. CONCLUSION: In advanced-stage HL patients in complete remission after six to eight cycles of MOPP-ABV, the outcome was not influenced by violation of the radiotherapy protocol.

Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE: To reduce the volume of small bowel within pelvic treatment fields for gynecological cancer using a bellyboard device and to determine the accuracy of the prone treatment position. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen consecutive patients with a gynecologic malignancy who were treated with postoperative pelvic radiotherapy were selected for this study. The volume of small bowel within the treatment fields was calculated for both the supine and prone treatment positions. The patients were treated in the prone position in a so-called bellyboard device. During treatment sessions electronic portal images were obtained. An off-line setup verification and correction protocol was used and the setup accuracy of the positioning in the bellyboard was determined. RESULTS: The average volume of small bowel within the treatment fields was 229 cm(3) and 66 cm(3) in the supine and prone treatment, respectively, which means an average volume reduction in the prone position of 64% (95% CI 56-72%), as compared with the supine position. For the position of the patient in the field, the systematic error defined by the standard deviation (SD) of the mean difference per patient between simulation and treatment images was 1.7 mm in the lateral direction, 2.1 mm in the craniocaudal direction and 1.7 mm in the ventrodorsal direction. On average, only 0.4 setup correction per patient was required to achieve this accuracy. The random day-to-day variations were 1.9 (1SD), 2.6 and 2.3 mm, respectively. Standard deviations of the systematic differences between patient positioning relative to the bellyboard were 6.2 mm in lateral direction and 9.1 mm in craniocaudal direction. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of gynecological cancer patients in the prone position using a bellyboard reduces the volume of irradiated small bowel. An off-line verification and correction protocol ensures accurate patient positioning. Daily setup variations using the bellyboard were small (1 SD<3 mm). Therefore for pelvic rad

Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE: To reduce the volume of small bowel within pelvic treatment fields for gynecological cancer using a bellyboard device and to determine the accuracy of the prone treatment position. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen consecutive patients with a gynecologic malignancy who were treated with postoperative pelvic radiotherapy were selected for this study. The volume of small bowel within the treatment fields was calculated for both the supine and prone treatment positions. The patients were treated in the prone position in a so-called bellyboard device. During treatment sessions electronic portal images were obtained. An off-line setup verification and correction protocol was used and the setup accuracy of the positioning in the bellyboard was determined. RESULTS: The average volume of small bowel within the treatment fields was 229 cm(3) and 66 cm(3) in the supine and prone treatment, respectively, which means an average volume reduction in the prone position of 64% (95% CI 56-72%), as compared with the supine position. For the position of the patient in the field, the systematic error defined by the standard deviation (SD) of the mean difference per patient between simulation and treatment images was 1.7 mm in the lateral direction, 2.1 mm in the craniocaudal direction and 1.7 mm in the ventrodorsal direction. On average, only 0.4 setup correction per patient was required to achieve this accuracy. The random day-to-day variations were 1.9 (1SD), 2.6 and 2.3 mm, respectively. Standard deviations of the systematic differences between patient positioning relative to the bellyboard were 6.2 mm in lateral direction and 9.1 mm in craniocaudal direction. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of gynecological cancer patients in the prone position using a bellyboard reduces the volume of irradiated small bowel. An off-line verification and correction protocol ensures accurate patient positioning. Daily setup variations using the bellyboard were small (1 SD<3 mm). Therefore for pelvic rad

Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE: To reduce the volume of small bowel within pelvic treatment fields for gynecological cancer using a bellyboard device and to determine the accuracy of the prone treatment position. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen consecutive patients with a gynecologic malignancy who were treated with postoperative pelvic radiotherapy were selected for this study. The volume of small bowel within the treatment fields was calculated for both the supine and prone treatment positions. The patients were treated in the prone position in a so-called bellyboard device. During treatment sessions electronic portal images were obtained. An off-line setup verification and correction protocol was used and the setup accuracy of the positioning in the bellyboard was determined. RESULTS: The average volume of small bowel within the treatment fields was 229 cm(3) and 66 cm(3) in the supine and prone treatment, respectively, which means an average volume reduction in the prone position of 64% (95% CI 56-72%), as compared with the supine position. For the position of the patient in the field, the systematic error defined by the standard deviation (SD) of the mean difference per patient between simulation and treatment images was 1.7 mm in the lateral direction, 2.1 mm in the craniocaudal direction and 1.7 mm in the ventrodorsal direction. On average, only 0.4 setup correction per patient was required to achieve this accuracy. The random day-to-day variations were 1.9 (1SD), 2.6 and 2.3 mm, respectively. Standard deviations of the systematic differences between patient positioning relative to the bellyboard were 6.2 mm in lateral direction and 9.1 mm in craniocaudal direction. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of gynecological cancer patients in the prone position using a bellyboard reduces the volume of irradiated small bowel. An off-line verification and correction protocol ensures accurate patient positioning. Daily setup variations using the bellyboard were small (1 SD<3 mm). Therefore for pelvic rad

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext