Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 144
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 144
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 212
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3106
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: This study evaluated the dosimetric effect of small bowel oral contrast on conventional radiation therapy, linear accelerator-based intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and helical tomotherapy (HT) treatment plans.
Methods And Materials: Thirteen patients with rectal cancer underwent computed tomography (CT) simulation with oral contrast (CCT) in preparation for chemoradiation therapy. The contrast in the small bowel was contoured, and a noncontrast CT scan (NCCT) was simulated by reassigning a CT number of 0 Hounsfield units to the contrast volume. Conventional, IMRT, and HT plans were generated with the CCT. The plan generated on the CCT was then recalculated on the NCCT, maintaining the same number of monitor units for each field, and the plans were not renormalized. Dosimetric parameters representing coverage of the planning target volume with 45 Gy (D98%, D95%, D50%, and D2%) and sparing of the bladder and peritoneal cavity (D50%, D30%, and D10%) were recorded. The ratio of dose calculated in the presence of contrast to dose with contrast edited out was recorded for each parameter. A paired Student t test was used for comparison of plans.
Results: For conventional plans, there was <0.1% variance in the dose ratio for all volumes of interest. For IMRT plans, there was a 1% decrease in the mean dose ratio, and the range of dose ratios for all volumes was greater than that for HT or conventional plans. For HT plans, for all volumes of interest, the mean dose ratio was <0.2%, and the range for all patients was <1%. For all IMRT dosimetric parameters, the difference was in the order of 1% of the mean dose (P < .05). The dose difference was not statistically significant for the conventional or HT plans.
Conclusions: The use of CCT during CT simulation has no clinically significant effect on dose calculations for conventional, IMRT, and HT treatment plans and may not require replacement of the contrast with a CT number of 0 Hounsfield units.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2014.07.004 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!