Comparison of Thermoplastic Cast Versus Knee Wedge/Foot Rest Immobilization Technique in the Treatment of Carcinoma Cervix with Conformal Radiation Therapy

• Vivel Nambiar

  Department of Radiation Oncology, Ramaiah Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore, India

• Kirthi Koushik

  Department of Radiation Oncology, Ramaiah Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore, India

• Ram Charith Alva

  Department of Radiation Oncology, Ramaiah Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore, India

A total of 58 patients who underwent concurrent chemo-radiation for carcinoma cervix were analyzed for magnitude of variation in daily treatment position with two immobilization methods, and its impact on the dose delivered to the organs at risk. Assessment was done with the help electronic portal imaging devices (EPID). The main endpoints of the study were to quantify and compare the total isocentric displacement among the knee rest foot rest and thermoplastic cast groups, and to correlate the effect of isocentric displacement with dose volume changes. The EPIDs were compared with the DRR and set-up errors were noted in X (medio-lateral) Y (antero- posterior) and Z (cranio-caudal) axes. Any variations above the prescribed limits were corrected accordingly before treatment and variations were noted. The root mean square variation in thermoplastic cast group ranged from 0.93 mm to 4.61 mm in X axis, 1.28 mm to 8.07 mm in Y axis, 1.19 mm to 9.49 mm in Z axis. In knee rest foot rest arm these variations are 1.27 mm to 6.05 mm in X axis, 0.91 mm to 4.8 mm in Y axis and 1.09 mm to 5.3 mm in Z axis respectively. P value was significant in Y direction. The total vector error in thermoplastic cast group is 6.308 ± 2.17, and for the knee rest foot rest group was 4.67 ± 1.48. The p value obtained was 0.002, which was statistically significant in favor of knee rest foot rest arm. The bladder, rectum, bowel dose mean differences after isocenter displacement were not statistically significant in both arms.

Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Tieulent JL, Jemal A. Global Cancer Statistics. Ca Cancer J Clin 2015; 65: 87-108. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21262

Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB, et al. Concurrent cisplatin-based chemoradiation improves progression-free and overall survival in advanced cervical cancer. Results ofa randomized Gynecologic Oncology Group study. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 1144-1153. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199904153401502

Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB, et al. A comparison of weekly cisplatin during radiation therapy versus irradiation alone, each followed by adjuvant hysterectomy in bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. A randomized trial of the Gynecologic Oncology Group. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 1154-1161. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199904153401503

Whitney CW, Sause W, Bundy BN, et al. Randomized comparison of florouracil plus cisplatin versus hydroxyurea as an adjunct to radiation therapy in stages IIB-IVA carcinoma of the cervix with negative para-aortic lymph nodes. A Gynecologic Oncology Group and Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 1339-1348. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1999.17.5.1339

Peters WA, Liu PY, Barrett RJ, et al. Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjunctive therapy after radical surgery in high- risk, early-stage carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 1606-1713. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2000.18.8.1606

Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J, et al. Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy versuspelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk cervical cancer. A randomized Radiation Therapy Oncology Group clinical trial N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 1137-1143. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199904153401501

Nutting CM, Khoo VS, Walker V, McNair H, Beardmore C, Norman A, Dearnaley DP. A randomised study of the use of a customized immobilization system in the treatment of prostate cancer with conformal radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 2000; 54(1): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(99)00181-4

Fiorino C, Reni M, Bolognesi A, Bonini A, Cattaneo GM, Calandrino R. Set-up errorin supine-positioned patients immobilized with two different modalities during conformal radiotherapy of prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 1998; 49(2): 133-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(98)00127-3

Bel A, Vos PH, Rodrigus PT, Creutzberg CL, Visser AG, Stroom JC, Lebesque JV. High- precision prostate cancer irradiation by clinical application of an offline patient setupverification procedure, using portal imaging. Radiothert Oncol 1996; 35: 321-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(95)02395-X

Malone S, Szanto J, Perry G, Gerig L, Manion S, Dahrouge S, Crook J. A prospective comparison of three systems of patient immobilization for prostate radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol 2000; 48(3): 657-665. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(00)00682-9

White P, Yee KC, Shan LC, Chung LW, Man NH, Cheung YS, et al. A comparison oftwo systems of patient immobilization for prostate radiotherapy. Radiation Oncology 2014; 9: 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-9-29

Song PY, Washinton M, Vaida F, Hamilton R, Spelbring D, Wyman B, Harrison J, Chen JTY, Vijayakumar S. A comparison of four patient immobilization devices in the treatment of prostate cancer Patients with three dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol 1995; 34(1): 213-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(95)02094-2

• PDF

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.