Search

Background and purpose: Dysphagia is a serious complaint but frequently underreported. This paper assesses for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) the relationship between the dose received by the swallowing structures, and the findings of a fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of the swallowing process (FEES). Materials and methods: Between 2000 and 2005, 60 of 67 OPC patients local-regionally NED for at least one year following treatment responded to three types of QoL questionnaires; i.e. Performance Status Scales, EORTC H&N35, and M.D. Anderson Dysphagia Inventory. Twenty-four patients agreed to the FEES procedure. The main swallowing muscles were delineated, with the mean dose per muscle calculated using the original 3D CT-based treatment plans. Regression analysis was performed between FEES variables and the doses in the different swallowing muscles and the dysphagia related questionnaires. Results: A significant relationship was found between the results of FEES and the mean dose in the superior constrictor muscle (SCM). Some of the subjective dysphagia complaints were significantly correlated with the FEES variables in this retrospectively study. Conclusion: A higher dose in the SCM generally results in worsening of the findings obtained by the FEES examination. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology 89 (2008) 57-63.

HDR monotherapy for prostate cancer consists of four fractions. The first fraction is delivered with online TRUS-based treatment planning. For the last three fractions the treatment plan is based on a CT-scan acquired in between fractions 1 and 2. The patient position (high lithotomy, rectal US probe) during TRUS-guided catheter implantation and first fraction differs from the patient position in the CT-scan and the remaining three fractions (lowered legs, no TRUS probe). This study describes the effect of posture changes on dose distributions when a plan designed for the TRUS anatomy is applied to the CT-scan anatomy. The aim is to quantify dosimetrical errors that would result from skipping the use of a planning CT-scan, and rely for all fractions on the TRUS plan. Such a procedure would substantially reduce the involved workload, and would increase patient comfort. For three prostate cancer patients, images were acquired during TRUS-guided catheter implantation. Furthermore, a CT-scan (no US probe in rectum, different position of legs) was acquired and matched with the TRUS set. On both TRUS and CT, prostate, urethra and rectum were delineated and all catheters were traced. For each patient, an optimized treatment plan was designed using TRUS images and contours. Catheters with obtained dwell positions of the TRUS plan were transferred individually to the catheter positions in the CT. Changes in dose distribution due to relocation of catheters were evaluated using DVHs. For all patients the dose distributions changed significantly due to rearrangement of the catheters, having most impact on the urethra (maximum observed change: 32% volume receiving >= 120% of the prescribed dose) and a reduction of PTV coverage (6-28%). Implant deformation when changing from TRUS patient set-up to CT set-up affected negatively the quality of optimized treatment plans. Inclusion of more patients in this study was planned, but because of the observed strong negative effects it is already concluded that the TRUS plan cannot be used for the last three fractions with a deviating patient set-up. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.