BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
First published online February 2, 2009
British Journal of Radiology (2009) 82, 321-327
© 2009 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/57848689
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by DRZYMALA, M
Right arrow Articles by TAIT, D M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by DRZYMALA, M
Right arrow Articles by TAIT, D M
British Journal of Radiology 82 (2009),321-327 ©2009 The British Institute of Radiology

The effect of treatment position, prone or supine, on dose–volume histograms for pelvic radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer

M DRZYMALA, FRCR 1 M A HAWKINS, FRCR 1 A J HENRYS, DAS 1 J BEDFORD, PhD 1 A NORMAN, PhD 2 and D M TAIT, FRCR 1

1 Departments of Clinical Oncology and 2 Medical Statistics and Computing, The Royal Marsden Foundation NHS Trust, Sutton, UK

Correspondence: Dr Diana Tait, Department of Clinical Oncology, The Royal Marsden Foundation NHS Trust, Downs Road, Sutton SM2 5PT, UK. E-mail: diana.tait{at}rmh.nhs.uk

Patients undergoing radiotherapy for rectal cancer are generally treated in a prone position, with a full bladder, to reduce the volume of normal bowel in the high-dose volume. This position is difficult to maintain, and is not consistently reproducible. This study evaluates the volume of bowel and dose received in the prone and supine positions in patients undergoing pre-operative rectal cancer chemoradiation. Using CT planning, 19 consecutive patients with rectal cancer with a full bladder underwent CT scanning first in the prone position and then immediately afterwards in the supine position. The planning target volume was outlined for the prone position and transcribed to the supine scan using pre-set criteria. The bladder and small bowel were outlined in both positions. Radiotherapy was planned using three-dimensional conformal planning, and treatment was delivered using three fields with multileaf collimators in two phases: phase I, pelvis 45 Gy/25 fractions; and phase II, tumour 9 Gy/five fractions. For both positions, the volume of bowel receiving doses in 5 Gy increments from 5–45 Gy was calculated using dose–volume histograms. At 5 Gy and 10 Gy dose levels, a significantly higher volume of bowel was irradiated in the supine position (p<0.001). At 15 Gy, it was marginally significant (p = 0.018). From 20–45 Gy, there was no significant difference in the volume of bowel irradiated with each 5 Gy increment. This study demonstrates that the volume of bowel irradiated at doses associated with bowel toxicity in concurrent chemoradiation is not significantly higher in the supine position. This position could be adopted for patients undergoing pre-operative rectal cancer chemoradiation.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2009 by the British Institute of Radiology.