Comparison of dosimetric data of bone marrow between standard IMRT and bone marrow sparing IMRT in carcinoma cervix
Abstract
Background: The aim of the study was to assess the dosimetric comparison of bone marrow between standard IMRT(SD-IMRT) and bone marrow sparing IMRT (BMS-IMRT) among carcinoma cervix patients who underwent radical or adjuvant chemoradiation in a tertiary cancer center.
Materials and methods: Forty eligible patients of histo-pathologically proven carcinoma cervix were enrolled in the study that was randomized on a 1:1 basis between SD-IMRT and BMS-IMRT from July 2018 to October 2019. The whole pelvis, bilateral femoral heads, and upper 1/3rd femur were contoured using the whole bone technique as a surrogate marker for the bone marrow. In both arms, V10, V20, and V40, bone marrow was noted along with mean, maximum, minimum dose, and total volume. DVH for the bone marrow in both arms was compared using the unpaired student t-test.
Results: We found no significant difference in the mean of various parameters in SD-IMRT arm vs. BMS IMRT arm — for the bone marrow: V10 (89 ± 4.3% vs. 86.7 ± 3.7%), V20 (73.2 ± 5.3% vs. 73.1 ± 4.5%), V40 (23.9 ± 5.4% vs. 26.6 ± 7.4%) and, similarly, for mean dose (28.1 ± 3.5% vs. 28.1 ± 1.8%), maximum dose (53.4 ± 0.58% vs. 53.2 ± 0.58%), minimum dose (0.33 ± 0.18% vs. 0.38 ± 0.38%), total volume (961 ± 110 cc vs. 901 ± 152 cc).
Conclusion: This study shows no statistically significant difference in dosimetry between the two groups, which suggests that SD-IMRT spares the bone marrow adequately. Therefore, the need for BMS-IMRT using the present contouring technique does not give any added advantage over SD-IMRT. However, large sample size, other novel contouring technique, and multivariate analysis are needed to reach a definite conclusion.
Keywords: bone marrow sparing IMRTpelvic radiationcarcinoma cervix
References
- World Health Organization. Globocan 2018: Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2018. http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx. (17th Sep 2020.).
- Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2020; 8(2): e191–e203.
- Ellis RE. The distribution of active bone marrow in the adult. Phys Med Biol. 1961; 5: 255–258.
- Blomlie V, Rofstad EK, Skjønsberg A, et al. Female pelvic bone marrow: serial MR imaging before, during, and after radiation therapy. Radiology. 1995; 194(2): 537–543.
- Abu-Rustum NR, Lee S, Correa A, et al. Compliance with and acute hematologic toxic effects of chemoradiation in indigent women with cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2001; 81(1): 88–91.
- Sacks EL, Goris ML, Glatstein E, et al. Bone marrow regeneration following large field radiation: influence of volume, age, dose, and time. Cancer. 1978; 42(3): 1057–1065, doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(197809)42:3<1057::aid-cncr2820420304>3.0.co;2-p.
- Rubin P, Landman S, Mayer E, et al. Bone marrow regeneration and extension after extended field irradiation in Hodgkin's disease. Cancer. 1973; 32(3): 699–711, doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(197309)32:3<699::aid-cncr2820320324>3.0.co;2-v.
- Sykes MP, Chu FC, Savel H, et al. The effects of varying dosages of irradiation upon sternal-marrow regeneration. Radiology. 1964; 83: 1084–1088.
- Mauch P, Constine L, Greenberger J, et al. Hematopoietic stem cell compartment: acute and late effects of radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995; 31(5): 1319–1339.
- World Health Organization, Worldwide Prevalence of Anaemia. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43894/9789241596657_eng.pdf;jsessionid=7254FDDA31F0C871E95F26EEAFE5E6CC?sequence=1;1993 to 2005 (18th Sep 2020.).
- Brixey CJ, Roeske JC, Lujan AE, et al. Impact of intensity-modulated radiotherapy on acute hematologic toxicity in women with gynecologic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002; 54(5): 1388–1396.
- Lujan AE, Mundt AJ, Yamada SD, et al. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy as a means of reducing dose to bone marrow in gynecologic patients receiving whole pelvic radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003; 57(2): 516–521.
- Mahantshetty U, Krishnatry R, Chaudhari S, et al. Comparison of 2 contouring methods of bone marrow on CT and correlation with hematological toxicities in non-bone marrow-sparing pelvic intensity-modulated radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin for cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012; 22(8): 1427–1434.
- Bansal A, Patel FD, Rai B, et al. Literature review with PGI guidelines for delineation of clinical target volume for intact carcinoma cervix. J Cancer Res Ther. 2013; 9(4): 574–582.
- Gay HA, Barthold HJ, O'Meara E, et al. Pelvic normal tissue contouring guidelines for radiation therapy: a Radiation Therapy Oncology Group consensus panel atlas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83(3): e353–e362.
- Mell LK, Schomas DA, Salama JK, et al. Association between bone marrow dosimetric parameters and acute hematologic toxicity in anal cancer patients treated with concurrent chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 70(5): 1431–1437.
- Mell LK, Kochanski JD, Roeske JC, et al. Dosimetric predictors of acute hematologic toxicity in cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent cisplatin and intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 66(5): 1356–1365.
- Hong L, Alektiar K, Chui C, et al. IMRT of large fields: whole-abdomen irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002; 54(1): 278–289.
- Rose BS, Aydogan B, Liang Y, et al. Normal tissue complication probability modeling of acute hematologic toxicity in cervical cancer patients treated with chemoradiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 79(3): 800–807.
- Mell LK, Schomas DA, Salama JK, et al. Association between bone marrow dosimetric parameters and acute hematologic toxicity in anal cancer patients treated with concurrent chemotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 70(5): 1431–1437.
- Mell LK, Kochanski JD, Roeske JC, et al. Dosimetric predictors of acute hematologic toxicity in cervical cancer patients treated with concurrent cisplatin and intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 66(5): 1356–1365.
- McGuire SM, Bhatia SK, Sun W, et al. Using [(18)F]Fluorothymidine Imaged With Positron Emission Tomography to Quantify and Reduce Hematologic Toxicity Due to Chemoradiation Therapy for Pelvic Cancer Patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016; 96(1): 228–239.
- Munshi A, Ganesh T, Mohanti BK. Radiotherapy in India: History, current scenario and proposed solutions. Indian J Cancer. 2019; 56(4): 359–363.