Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorGursel, Sukriye Bilge
dc.contributor.authorSerarslan, Alparslan
dc.contributor.authorMeydan, Ahmet Deniz
dc.contributor.authorOkumus, Nilgun
dc.contributor.authorYasayacak, Tenzile
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T12:18:49Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T12:18:49Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.issn1689-832X
dc.identifier.issn2081-2841
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.5114/jcb.2020.94308
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12712/10291
dc.descriptionWOS: 000531069800004en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 32395134en_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The standard treatment for locally advanced stage cervical cancer is definitive radiotherapy, the quality of which affects both survival and side effects. Brachytherapy is a major component of definitive radiotherapy; it is administered using different techniques and applicators. The purpose of this study was to dosimetrically compare tandem ovoid (T-ovoid) and tandem ring (T-ring) brachytherapy treatments. Material and methods: Both applicator sets were applied to the same 20 patients, and treatment plans were made three-dimensionally (3D), with high-risk clinical target volume (HR-CTV) and organs at risk contoured. The HR-CTV was defined according to post-external magnetic resonance results. The patients with residual tumors not exceeding one-third of the parametrium were included in this study, while patients with larger masses were excluded and received interstitial therapy. The doses were calculated for both plans. Optimization for the HR-CTV was made with the aim that the equivalent dose according to 2 Gy (EQD(2)) of 90% of the HR-CTV (D-90) would be higher than 85 Gy, without exceeding the maximum dose for organs at risk. Then, pairwise dosimetric comparisons were performed. Results: Plans were compared dosimetrically according to the HR-CTV, point A and B doses, and organs at risk. Although the point A and B doses were higher with T-ovoid use, the 3D HR-CTV coverage was statistically better with T-ring application (EQD(2) of HR-CTV D-90: 97.46 Gy for T-ring and 88.44 Gy for T-ovoid; p < 0.0001). In addition, the rectum and bladder doses were statistically lower with T-ring usage (EQD(2) of rectum, 2 cc; T-ring, 63.10 Gy; T-ovoid, 74.99 Gy; p < 0.0001; EQD(2) of bladder, 2 cc; T-ring, 85.26 Gy; T-ovoid, 89.05 Gy; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: In our study with a limited number of samples, T-ring applicator seems to offer better 3D brachytherapy dosimetry for both HR-CTV and nearby organs at risk.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherTermedia Publishing House Ltden_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.5114/jcb.2020.94308en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectbrachytherapyen_US
dc.subjectringen_US
dc.subjectovoiden_US
dc.subjectthree-dimensional planningen_US
dc.subjecthigh-risk clinical target volumeen_US
dc.titleA comparison of tandem ring and tandem ovoid treatment as a curative brachytherapy component for cervical canceren_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentOMÜen_US
dc.identifier.volume12en_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage111en_US
dc.identifier.endpage117en_US
dc.relation.journalJournal of Contemporary Brachytherapyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster