PuSH - Publikationsserver des Helmholtz Zentrums München: Dosimetric comparison of organs at risk using different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume in anal cancer.

Informationen

Hinweise zu Qualitätskriterien von Zeitschriften

Open-Access-Richtlinie der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft 2016

CC Licencences

Metriken für Publikationen

Navigation

Startseite

English

EVA: Veröffentlichen

Neuer EVA Antrag

Recherche

Erweiterte Suche

Durchblättern nach ...

... HMGU-Autoren/Konsortien

... Organisationsstruktur

... Zeitschriften

... Publikationstypen

... Forschungsdaten

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Erscheinungsjahr

Publikationen im Überblick

Statistik

HGF Fortschrittsbericht

OA Publikationen

Eintragen

Neue Publikation eintragen

Neue Publikation holen aus...

...EVA

Fehlende Publikation melden

Highlights

Suche

Hilfe & Kontakt

Ansprechpartner

Hilfe

Datenschutz

Helmholtz Open Science

Bibliometrische Indikatoren

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Dapper, H.* ; Oechsner, M.* ; Münch, S.* ; Diehl, C.* ; Peeken, J.C. ; Borm, K.* ; Combs, S.E.

Dosimetric comparison of organs at risk using different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume in anal cancer.

Strahlenther. Onkol. 196, 368–375 (2020)

Verlagsversion

DOI

PMC

	Open Access Hybrid

Abstract
Metriken
Zusatzinfos

Background There are different contouring guidelines for definition of the clinical target volume (CTV) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of anal cancer (AC). We conducted a planning comparison study to evaluate and compare the dose to relevant organs at risk (OARs) while using different CTV definitions. Methods Twelve patients with a primary diagnosis of anal cancer, who were treated with primary chemoradiation (CRT), were selected. We generated four guideline-specific CTVs and subsequently planned target volumes (PTVs) on the planning CT scan of each patient. An IMRT plan for volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) was set up for each PTV. Dose parameters of the planned target volume (PTV) and OARs were evaluated and compared, too. Results The mean volume of the four PTVs ranged from 2138 cc to 2433 cc. The target volumes contoured by the authors based on the recommendations of each group were similar in the pelvis, while they differed significantly in the inguinal region. There were no significant differences between the four target volumes with regard to the dose parameters of the cranially located OARs. Conversely, some dose parameters concerning the genitals and the skin varied significantly among the different guidelines. Conclusion The four contouring guidelines differ significantly concerning the inguinal region. In order to avoid inguinal recurrence and to protect relevant OARs, further investigations are needed to generate uniform standards for definition of the elective clinical target volume in the inguinal region.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Web of Science
Times Cited

Scopus
Cited By

Altmetric

2.899

1.023