AIM: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of conformal radiotherapy (CRT) and compare with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the treatment of gallbladder cancer. METHODS: Between November 2003 and January 2010...AIM: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of conformal radiotherapy (CRT) and compare with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the treatment of gallbladder cancer. METHODS: Between November 2003 and January 2010, 20 patients with gallbladder cancer were treated with CRT with or without chemotherapy after surgical resection. Preliminary survival data were collected and examined using both Kaplan-Meier and actuarial analysis. Demographic and treatment parameters were collected. All patients were planned to receive 46-56 Gy in 1.8 or 2.0 Gy per fraction. CRT planning was compared with IMRT. RESULTS: The most common reported acute toxicities requiring medication (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Grade 2) were nausea (10/20 patients) and diarrhea (3/20). There were no treatment-related deaths. Compared with CRT planning, IMRT significantly reduced the volume of right kidney receiving > 20 Gy and the volume of liver receiving > 30 Gy. IMRT has a negligible impact on the volume of left kidney receiving > 20 Gy. The 95% of prescribed dose for a planning tumor volume using either 3D CRT or IMRT planning were 84.0% ± 6.7%, 82.9% ± 6.1%, respectively (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: IMRT achieves similar excellent target coverage as compared with CRT planning, while reducing the mean liver dose and volume above threshold dose. IMRT offers better sparing of the right kidney compared with CRT planning, with a significantly lower mean dose and volume above threshold dose.展开更多
文摘AIM: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of conformal radiotherapy (CRT) and compare with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the treatment of gallbladder cancer. METHODS: Between November 2003 and January 2010, 20 patients with gallbladder cancer were treated with CRT with or without chemotherapy after surgical resection. Preliminary survival data were collected and examined using both Kaplan-Meier and actuarial analysis. Demographic and treatment parameters were collected. All patients were planned to receive 46-56 Gy in 1.8 or 2.0 Gy per fraction. CRT planning was compared with IMRT. RESULTS: The most common reported acute toxicities requiring medication (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Grade 2) were nausea (10/20 patients) and diarrhea (3/20). There were no treatment-related deaths. Compared with CRT planning, IMRT significantly reduced the volume of right kidney receiving > 20 Gy and the volume of liver receiving > 30 Gy. IMRT has a negligible impact on the volume of left kidney receiving > 20 Gy. The 95% of prescribed dose for a planning tumor volume using either 3D CRT or IMRT planning were 84.0% ± 6.7%, 82.9% ± 6.1%, respectively (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: IMRT achieves similar excellent target coverage as compared with CRT planning, while reducing the mean liver dose and volume above threshold dose. IMRT offers better sparing of the right kidney compared with CRT planning, with a significantly lower mean dose and volume above threshold dose.
