A quantitative assessment of standard vs. Customized midline shield construction for invasive cervical carcinoma

Aaron Wolfson, May Abdel-Wahab, Arnold Markoe, William J. Raub, David Diaz, Joseph J. Desmond, Joseph Y. Ting

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: An individualized midline shield (MLS) has been advocated for delivering homogeneous radiotherapy for patients with invasive cervical carcinoma. Yet, many radiation oncologists continue to employ a standard block. In the latter instance, any deviation of the cranial-caudal central axis of the tandem from the patient's midline could result in dose inhomogeneity to tumor. A retrospective review of a single university medical center's experience with constructing the MLS was initiated to determine the outcome of using a standard block vs. a customized block that conforms to the 'Point A' isodose line. In addition, participating radiation oncologists associated with the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) were polled to assess if there exists a consensus regarding midline block utilization in the management of cervical cancer patients which could be compared to the institutional study. Methods and Materials: From January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1992, 32 patients with invasive cervical carcinoma who underwent low dose rate brachytherapy at a single institution were identified. Patients were grouped as having a standard block (18 cases), customized block (5 cases), or no block (9 cases). The 'Point A' isodose distribution from the implant was superimposed onto the whole pelvic simulation film and quantitatively compared to the actual or a hypothetical standard block outlined on the same radiograph. In September of 1995, 56 member and affiliated institutions in the GOG were surveyed concerning their use of a MLS, and the results were tabulated in December of 1995. Results: Approximately 72% of all cases (23 out of 32) at the single institution had tandem deviation ranging from 0-230 with a median of 50. This translated into a median percent overdosage to 'Point A' Right of 15% and 'Point A' Left of 12.5%. Although overall survival and incidence of chronic complications have not been affected by type of shielding, patient follow-up is limited with a median of 17.7 months (range: 4.2-58.9 months). Of the 56 surveyed radiation facilities in the GOG, 34 (61%) responded. One center was subsequently excluded as it performs only high dose rate brachytherapy. Of the evaluable respondents, 88% (29 out of 33) utilize a MLS in treating their patients with invasive cervical carcinoma. Of the latter group, 76% (22 out of 29), 21% (6 out of 29), and 3% (1 out of 29) employ a standard block, customized block, and a 'step-wedge,' respectively. For those using a standard block, 77% (17 out of 22) align the central cranial-caudal axis of the MLS along the corresponding midplane of the patient's pelvis on an anteroposterior radiograph rather than along the superior-inferior central axis of the tandem. Conclusions: This study suggests that the use of a standard midline shield could result in potential tumor dose inhomogeneity and should be avoided. A national survey of major academic centers further suggests that the majority of these facilities also utilize a rectangular central block that is not positioned with respect to possible tandem deviation. Further investigation concerning the techniques of midline shield construction should be considered.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)237-242
Number of pages6
JournalInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Volume37
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1997

Fingerprint

cancer
Carcinoma
dosage
Brachytherapy
deviation
inhomogeneity
radiation
tumors
pelvis
Pelvis
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
wedges
shielding
radiation therapy
Neoplasms
Radiotherapy
incidence
Radiation
Survival
Incidence

Keywords

  • Cervical carcinoma
  • Low dose rate brachytherapy
  • Midline shield

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiation

Cite this

A quantitative assessment of standard vs. Customized midline shield construction for invasive cervical carcinoma. / Wolfson, Aaron; Abdel-Wahab, May; Markoe, Arnold; Raub, William J.; Diaz, David; Desmond, Joseph J.; Ting, Joseph Y.

In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, Vol. 37, No. 1, 01.01.1997, p. 237-242.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wolfson, Aaron ; Abdel-Wahab, May ; Markoe, Arnold ; Raub, William J. ; Diaz, David ; Desmond, Joseph J. ; Ting, Joseph Y. / A quantitative assessment of standard vs. Customized midline shield construction for invasive cervical carcinoma. In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 1997 ; Vol. 37, No. 1. pp. 237-242.
@article{f8584249e60447fdab8365b219a6c1bc,
title = "A quantitative assessment of standard vs. Customized midline shield construction for invasive cervical carcinoma",
abstract = "Purpose: An individualized midline shield (MLS) has been advocated for delivering homogeneous radiotherapy for patients with invasive cervical carcinoma. Yet, many radiation oncologists continue to employ a standard block. In the latter instance, any deviation of the cranial-caudal central axis of the tandem from the patient's midline could result in dose inhomogeneity to tumor. A retrospective review of a single university medical center's experience with constructing the MLS was initiated to determine the outcome of using a standard block vs. a customized block that conforms to the 'Point A' isodose line. In addition, participating radiation oncologists associated with the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) were polled to assess if there exists a consensus regarding midline block utilization in the management of cervical cancer patients which could be compared to the institutional study. Methods and Materials: From January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1992, 32 patients with invasive cervical carcinoma who underwent low dose rate brachytherapy at a single institution were identified. Patients were grouped as having a standard block (18 cases), customized block (5 cases), or no block (9 cases). The 'Point A' isodose distribution from the implant was superimposed onto the whole pelvic simulation film and quantitatively compared to the actual or a hypothetical standard block outlined on the same radiograph. In September of 1995, 56 member and affiliated institutions in the GOG were surveyed concerning their use of a MLS, and the results were tabulated in December of 1995. Results: Approximately 72{\%} of all cases (23 out of 32) at the single institution had tandem deviation ranging from 0-230 with a median of 50. This translated into a median percent overdosage to 'Point A' Right of 15{\%} and 'Point A' Left of 12.5{\%}. Although overall survival and incidence of chronic complications have not been affected by type of shielding, patient follow-up is limited with a median of 17.7 months (range: 4.2-58.9 months). Of the 56 surveyed radiation facilities in the GOG, 34 (61{\%}) responded. One center was subsequently excluded as it performs only high dose rate brachytherapy. Of the evaluable respondents, 88{\%} (29 out of 33) utilize a MLS in treating their patients with invasive cervical carcinoma. Of the latter group, 76{\%} (22 out of 29), 21{\%} (6 out of 29), and 3{\%} (1 out of 29) employ a standard block, customized block, and a 'step-wedge,' respectively. For those using a standard block, 77{\%} (17 out of 22) align the central cranial-caudal axis of the MLS along the corresponding midplane of the patient's pelvis on an anteroposterior radiograph rather than along the superior-inferior central axis of the tandem. Conclusions: This study suggests that the use of a standard midline shield could result in potential tumor dose inhomogeneity and should be avoided. A national survey of major academic centers further suggests that the majority of these facilities also utilize a rectangular central block that is not positioned with respect to possible tandem deviation. Further investigation concerning the techniques of midline shield construction should be considered.",
keywords = "Cervical carcinoma, Low dose rate brachytherapy, Midline shield",
author = "Aaron Wolfson and May Abdel-Wahab and Arnold Markoe and Raub, {William J.} and David Diaz and Desmond, {Joseph J.} and Ting, {Joseph Y.}",
year = "1997",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0360-3016(96)00469-5",
language = "English",
volume = "37",
pages = "237--242",
journal = "International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics",
issn = "0360-3016",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A quantitative assessment of standard vs. Customized midline shield construction for invasive cervical carcinoma

AU - Wolfson, Aaron

AU - Abdel-Wahab, May

AU - Markoe, Arnold

AU - Raub, William J.

AU - Diaz, David

AU - Desmond, Joseph J.

AU - Ting, Joseph Y.

PY - 1997/1/1

Y1 - 1997/1/1

N2 - Purpose: An individualized midline shield (MLS) has been advocated for delivering homogeneous radiotherapy for patients with invasive cervical carcinoma. Yet, many radiation oncologists continue to employ a standard block. In the latter instance, any deviation of the cranial-caudal central axis of the tandem from the patient's midline could result in dose inhomogeneity to tumor. A retrospective review of a single university medical center's experience with constructing the MLS was initiated to determine the outcome of using a standard block vs. a customized block that conforms to the 'Point A' isodose line. In addition, participating radiation oncologists associated with the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) were polled to assess if there exists a consensus regarding midline block utilization in the management of cervical cancer patients which could be compared to the institutional study. Methods and Materials: From January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1992, 32 patients with invasive cervical carcinoma who underwent low dose rate brachytherapy at a single institution were identified. Patients were grouped as having a standard block (18 cases), customized block (5 cases), or no block (9 cases). The 'Point A' isodose distribution from the implant was superimposed onto the whole pelvic simulation film and quantitatively compared to the actual or a hypothetical standard block outlined on the same radiograph. In September of 1995, 56 member and affiliated institutions in the GOG were surveyed concerning their use of a MLS, and the results were tabulated in December of 1995. Results: Approximately 72% of all cases (23 out of 32) at the single institution had tandem deviation ranging from 0-230 with a median of 50. This translated into a median percent overdosage to 'Point A' Right of 15% and 'Point A' Left of 12.5%. Although overall survival and incidence of chronic complications have not been affected by type of shielding, patient follow-up is limited with a median of 17.7 months (range: 4.2-58.9 months). Of the 56 surveyed radiation facilities in the GOG, 34 (61%) responded. One center was subsequently excluded as it performs only high dose rate brachytherapy. Of the evaluable respondents, 88% (29 out of 33) utilize a MLS in treating their patients with invasive cervical carcinoma. Of the latter group, 76% (22 out of 29), 21% (6 out of 29), and 3% (1 out of 29) employ a standard block, customized block, and a 'step-wedge,' respectively. For those using a standard block, 77% (17 out of 22) align the central cranial-caudal axis of the MLS along the corresponding midplane of the patient's pelvis on an anteroposterior radiograph rather than along the superior-inferior central axis of the tandem. Conclusions: This study suggests that the use of a standard midline shield could result in potential tumor dose inhomogeneity and should be avoided. A national survey of major academic centers further suggests that the majority of these facilities also utilize a rectangular central block that is not positioned with respect to possible tandem deviation. Further investigation concerning the techniques of midline shield construction should be considered.

AB - Purpose: An individualized midline shield (MLS) has been advocated for delivering homogeneous radiotherapy for patients with invasive cervical carcinoma. Yet, many radiation oncologists continue to employ a standard block. In the latter instance, any deviation of the cranial-caudal central axis of the tandem from the patient's midline could result in dose inhomogeneity to tumor. A retrospective review of a single university medical center's experience with constructing the MLS was initiated to determine the outcome of using a standard block vs. a customized block that conforms to the 'Point A' isodose line. In addition, participating radiation oncologists associated with the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) were polled to assess if there exists a consensus regarding midline block utilization in the management of cervical cancer patients which could be compared to the institutional study. Methods and Materials: From January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1992, 32 patients with invasive cervical carcinoma who underwent low dose rate brachytherapy at a single institution were identified. Patients were grouped as having a standard block (18 cases), customized block (5 cases), or no block (9 cases). The 'Point A' isodose distribution from the implant was superimposed onto the whole pelvic simulation film and quantitatively compared to the actual or a hypothetical standard block outlined on the same radiograph. In September of 1995, 56 member and affiliated institutions in the GOG were surveyed concerning their use of a MLS, and the results were tabulated in December of 1995. Results: Approximately 72% of all cases (23 out of 32) at the single institution had tandem deviation ranging from 0-230 with a median of 50. This translated into a median percent overdosage to 'Point A' Right of 15% and 'Point A' Left of 12.5%. Although overall survival and incidence of chronic complications have not been affected by type of shielding, patient follow-up is limited with a median of 17.7 months (range: 4.2-58.9 months). Of the 56 surveyed radiation facilities in the GOG, 34 (61%) responded. One center was subsequently excluded as it performs only high dose rate brachytherapy. Of the evaluable respondents, 88% (29 out of 33) utilize a MLS in treating their patients with invasive cervical carcinoma. Of the latter group, 76% (22 out of 29), 21% (6 out of 29), and 3% (1 out of 29) employ a standard block, customized block, and a 'step-wedge,' respectively. For those using a standard block, 77% (17 out of 22) align the central cranial-caudal axis of the MLS along the corresponding midplane of the patient's pelvis on an anteroposterior radiograph rather than along the superior-inferior central axis of the tandem. Conclusions: This study suggests that the use of a standard midline shield could result in potential tumor dose inhomogeneity and should be avoided. A national survey of major academic centers further suggests that the majority of these facilities also utilize a rectangular central block that is not positioned with respect to possible tandem deviation. Further investigation concerning the techniques of midline shield construction should be considered.

KW - Cervical carcinoma

KW - Low dose rate brachytherapy

KW - Midline shield

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031053815&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031053815&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0360-3016(96)00469-5

DO - 10.1016/S0360-3016(96)00469-5

M3 - Article

C2 - 9054901

AN - SCOPUS:0031053815

VL - 37

SP - 237

EP - 242

JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

SN - 0360-3016

IS - 1

ER -