Comparison of dosimetric data of bone marrow between standard IMRT and bone marrow sparing IMRT in carcinoma cervix

• Published in: Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy 2021-01, Vol.26 (6), p.976-983
• Main Authors: Pattanayak, Lucy, Mohanta, Samir, Panda, Sasmita, Mohapatra, Manoranjan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Research Paper
• ISSN: 1507-1367; 2083-4640
• DOI: 10.5603/RPOR.a2021.0120

The aim of the study was to assess the dosimetric comparison of bone marrow between standard IMRT(SD-IMRT) and bone marrow sparing IMRT (BMS-IMRT) among carcinoma cervix patients who underwent radical or adjuvant chemoradiation in a tertiary cancer center. Forty eligible patients of histo-pathologically proven carcinoma cervix were enrolled in the study that was randomized on a 1:1 basis between SD-IMRT and BMS-IMRT from July 2018 to October 2019. The whole pelvis, bilateral femoral heads, and upper 1/3 femur were contoured using the whole bone technique as a surrogate marker for the bone marrow. In both arms, V10, V20, and V40, bone marrow was noted along with mean, maximum, minimum dose, and total volume. DVH for the bone marrow in both arms was compared using the unpaired student t-test. We found no significant difference in the mean of various parameters in SD-IMRT arm . BMS IMRT arm - for the bone marrow: V10 (89 ± 4.3% . 86.7 ± 3.7%), V20 (73.2 ± 5.3% . 73.1 ± 4.5%), V40 (23.9 ± 5.4% . 26.6 ± 7.4%) and, similarly, for mean dose (28.1 ± 3.5% . 28.1 ± 1.8%), maximum dose (53.4 ± 0.58% . 53.2 ± 0.58%), minimum dose (0.33 ± 0.18% . 0.38 ± 0.38%), total volume (961 ± 110 cc . 901 ± 152 cc). This study shows no statistically significant difference in dosimetry between the two groups, which suggests that SD-IMRT spares the bone marrow adequately. Therefore, the need for BMS-IMRT using the present contouring technique does not give any added advantage over SD-IMRT. However, large sample size, other novel contouring technique, and multivariate analysis are needed to reach a definite conclusion.