PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Joy Coleman

Publications and source records attributed to Joy Coleman.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy improves lymph node coverage and dose to critical structures compared with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantify gains in lymph node coverage and critical structure dose reduction for whole-pelvis (WP) and extended-field (EF) radiotherapy in prostate cancer using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) for the first treatment phase of 45 Gy in the concurrent treatment of lymph nodes and prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From January to August 2005, 35 patients with localized prostate cancer were treated with pelvic IMRT; 7 had nodes defined up to L5-S1 (Group 1), and 28 had nodes defined above L5-S1 (Group 2). Each patient had 2 plans retrospectively generated: 1 WP 3DCRT plan using bony landmarks, and 1 EF 3DCRT plan to cover the vascular defined volumes. Dose-volume histograms for the lymph nodes, rectum, bladder, small bowel, and penile bulb were compared by group. RESULTS: For Group 1, WP 3DCRT missed 25% of pelvic nodes with the prescribed dose 45 Gy and missed 18% with the 95% prescribed dose 42.75 Gy, whereas WP IMRT achieved V(45 Gy) = 98% and V(42.75 Gy) = 100%. Compared with WP 3DCRT, IMRT reduced bladder V(45 Gy) by 78%, rectum V(45 Gy) by 48%, and small bowel V(45 Gy) by 232 cm3. EF 3DCRT achieved 95% coverage of nodes for all patients at high cost to critical structures. For Group 2, IMRT decreased bladder V(45 Gy) by 90%, rectum V(45 Gy) by 54% and small bowel V(45 Gy) by 455 cm3 compared with EF 3DCRT. CONCLUSION: In this study WP 3DCRT missed a significant percentage of pelvic nodes. Although EF 3DCRT achieved 95% pelvic nodal coverage, it increased critical structure doses. IMRT improved pelvic nodal coverage while decreasing dose to bladder, rectum, small bowel, and penile bulb. For patients with extended node involvement, IMRT especially decreases small bowel dose.

Aged↗

A comparison of Monte Carlo and Fermi-Eyges-Hogstrom estimates of heart and lung dose from breast electron boost treatment.

PURPOSE: Electrons are commonly used in the treatment of breast cancer primarily to deliver a tumor bed boost. We compared the use of the Monte Carlo (MC) method and the Fermi-Eyges-Hogstrom (FEH) algorithm to calculate the dose distribution of electron treatment to normal tissues. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ten patients with left-sided breast cancer treated with breast-conservation therapy at the University of California, San Francisco, were included in this study. Each patient received an electron boost to the surgical bed to a dose of 1,600 cGy in 200 cGy fractions prescribed to 80% of the maximum. Doses to the left ventricle (LV) and the ipsilateral lung (IL) were calculated using the EGS4 MC system and the FEH algorithm implemented on the commercially available Pinnacle treatment planning system. An anthromorphic phantom was irradiated with radiochromic film in place to verify the accuracy of the MC system. RESULTS: Dose distributions calculated with the MC algorithm agreed with the film measurements within 3% or 3 mm. For all patients in the study, the dose to the LV and IL was relatively low as calculated by MC. That is, the maximum dose received by up to 98% of the LV volume was < 100 cGy/day. Less than half of the IL received a dose in excess of 30 cGy/day. When compared with MC, FEH tended to show reduced penetration of the electron beam in lung, and FEH tended to overestimate the bremsstrahlung dose in regions well beyond the electron practical range. These differences were clinically likely to be of little significance, comprising differences of less than one-tenth of the LV and IL volume at doses > 30 cGy and differences in maximum dose of < 35 cGy/day to the LV and 80 cGy/day to the IL. CONCLUSIONS: From our series, using clinical judgment to prescribe the boost to the surgical bed after breast-conserving treatment results in low doses to the underlying LV and IL. When calculated dose distributions are desired, MC is the most accurate, but FEH can still be used.

Algorithms↗