Rajdeep Bose, Sumitava De, Bidyut Biswas, Linkon Biswas, Sandip Ghosh
{"title":"A prospective comparative study on conformal pelvic radiation with 6 MV vs. mixed energy beam for carcinoma cervix.","authors":"Rajdeep Bose, Sumitava De, Bidyut Biswas, Linkon Biswas, Sandip Ghosh","doi":"10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_678_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Both low and high energy beams have their own pros and cons. But, there are very limited data available in the literature comparing monoenergetic and mixed energy beam for radiotherapy of carcinoma cervix. This study was aimed at comparing monoenergetic (6 MV) versus mixed energy beam (6 MV and 10 MV) used for treatment of carcinoma cervix in terms of dosimetric parameters and acute toxicity profile.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>It was a single-institutional, prospective, comparative study among 60 patients with non-metastatic carcinoma cervix who received radical Radiotherapy between March 2021 and September 2022. Two radiotherapy planning were performed for each patient, one with mixed energy beam and another with 6MV energy, and treated with one of the treatment plans in a 1:1 fashion using two different energies. We compared the two plans in terms of dosimetric parameters and clinically by the acute toxicity profile.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean V95 of planning target volume (PTV) was numerically higher in the mixed beam arm (99.83 ± 0.11% vs. 99.28 ± 0.21%, P value - 0.812). Bowel sparing was slightly better in mixed beam therapy in terms of V20 of bowel (63.88% ± 8.26 vs. 64.03% ± 10.23, P value - 0.067). Mean V50 of the urinary bladder was also almost the same in both mixed and monoenergetic beam arms. Skin toxicity was significantly less in mixed beam treatment (P value < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For pelvic irradiation, mixed energy beam has better planning target volume coverage, better sparing of organ at risks (OARs), and better acute toxicity profile than monoenergetic beam.</p>","PeriodicalId":94070,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cancer research and therapeutics","volume":"21 3","pages":"707-711"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cancer research and therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_678_25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Both low and high energy beams have their own pros and cons. But, there are very limited data available in the literature comparing monoenergetic and mixed energy beam for radiotherapy of carcinoma cervix. This study was aimed at comparing monoenergetic (6 MV) versus mixed energy beam (6 MV and 10 MV) used for treatment of carcinoma cervix in terms of dosimetric parameters and acute toxicity profile.
Materials and methods: It was a single-institutional, prospective, comparative study among 60 patients with non-metastatic carcinoma cervix who received radical Radiotherapy between March 2021 and September 2022. Two radiotherapy planning were performed for each patient, one with mixed energy beam and another with 6MV energy, and treated with one of the treatment plans in a 1:1 fashion using two different energies. We compared the two plans in terms of dosimetric parameters and clinically by the acute toxicity profile.
Results: The mean V95 of planning target volume (PTV) was numerically higher in the mixed beam arm (99.83 ± 0.11% vs. 99.28 ± 0.21%, P value - 0.812). Bowel sparing was slightly better in mixed beam therapy in terms of V20 of bowel (63.88% ± 8.26 vs. 64.03% ± 10.23, P value - 0.067). Mean V50 of the urinary bladder was also almost the same in both mixed and monoenergetic beam arms. Skin toxicity was significantly less in mixed beam treatment (P value < 0.05).
Conclusion: For pelvic irradiation, mixed energy beam has better planning target volume coverage, better sparing of organ at risks (OARs), and better acute toxicity profile than monoenergetic beam.
背景:低能束和高能束都有各自的优缺点,但是比较单能束和混合能束用于宫颈癌放疗的文献资料非常有限。本研究旨在比较单能量束(6毫伏)与混合能量束(6毫伏和10毫伏)治疗宫颈癌的剂量学参数和急性毒性特征。材料和方法:这是一项单机构、前瞻性、比较研究,研究对象为60例在2021年3月至2022年9月期间接受根治性放疗的非转移性宫颈癌患者。每位患者分别进行混合能量束和6MV能量两种放疗计划,采用两种不同能量的治疗方案,以1:1的比例进行治疗。我们在剂量学参数和临床急性毒性方面比较了两种方案。结果:混合束臂规划靶体积(PTV)的平均V95数值更高(99.83±0.11% vs. 99.28±0.21%,P值- 0.812)。在肠道V20方面,混合束治疗的肠道保留稍好(63.88%±8.26 vs 64.03%±10.23,P值- 0.067)。膀胱的平均V50在混合和单能束臂中也几乎相同。混合光束治疗组皮肤毒性显著降低(P值< 0.05)。结论:对于骨盆照射,混合能束比单能束有更好的靶体积覆盖规划,更好的保留危险器官(OARs),并具有更好的急性毒性。