Main Article Content
Purpose/Object: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference in dose and the monitor units (MUs) between the two plan groups on two CT images with contrast and non-contrast. Then, it is proposed to use CT images with intravenous contrast as the basic sequence of images to plan cancer treatment for patients.
Materials/Methods: A total of 20 contrasted and non-contrasted patients with lung and cervical cancers were included. Prowess 5.1 software was used to do the treatment planning.
Results: There was no significant difference in dose distribution and monitor unit of both intravenous and non-intravenous contrast had the mean difference in the dose of 1.17% and on MU was 1.42% with plan groups of lung cancer and 0.45% and 0.32% with plan groups of cervical cancer. Some cases had big differences; for example, the difference was 4.14% of the volume of PTV received maximum dose. The main cause of this discrepancy was that the patients were unable to control their breathing, resulting in their bodies moving differently during CT before and after contrast injection.
Conclusions: The use of contrast agents doesn’t significantly influence dose and monitor unit at some cases of lung and cervical cancer but it can influence dose accuracy for other cancer sites such as head and neck, prostate or rectum.
Ronald B. Kuppersmith. It takes only one month for urinary iodine to return to its baseline value after the use of iodinated contrast agents in patients who have undergone thyroidectomy. American Thyroid Association. 2012;5(1):7.
Christopler A. Barker, Robert W. Mutter, Lauren Q. Shapiro, Zhigang Zhang, Suzanne L. Wolden, Joachim Yahalom. Contrast media use in radiation oncology: A prospective controlled educational intervention study with retrospective analysis of patient outcomes. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(12):967-974.
[PMC 2016 January 15]
Breiki G, Abbas Y, Ashry MEL, Diyab H. Evaluation of radiation dose and image quality for patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) examinations. IX Radiation Physics & Protection Conference, 1-19 November 2008 Nasr City, Cairo – Egypt; 2008.
Siemens Shanghai 2002 – 2007 Medical Equipment Ltd (2007), syngo CT 2007P SOMATOM Spirit Application Guide, China.Siemens Shanghai 2002 – 2007 Medical Equipment Ltd (2007), syngo CT 2007P SOMATOM Spirit Application Guide, China.
Lichter AS, Lawrence TS. Medical progress-recent advances in radiation oncology. New England Journal of Medicine. 1995;332:371-379.
Goitein M. Radiation oncology: A physicist’s – Eye View, Springer; 2007.
Obeid L, Molinier J, Ailleres N, Bedos L, Morel A, Simeon S, Fenoglietto P. Influence of CT contrast agent on head and neck VMAT dose distributions. Institute Regional Du Cancer Montpellier, France; 2017. Poster presented at Estro 36, 5-9 May 2017 Vienna, Austria.
Ian Gleeson. Dosimetric effects of bladder and rectal agents in prostate radiotherapy. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice. 2013;12:344- 351.
Le´Tourneau D, Finlay M, O’sullivan B, Waldron JN, Cummings BJ, Ringash J, Kim JJ, Bayley AJ, Dawson LA. Lack of influence of intravenous contrast on head and neck IMRT dose distributions. Acta Oncologica. 2008;47:90–94.
Liauw SL, Amdur RJ, Mendenhall WM, Palta J, Kim S. The effect of intravenous contrast on intensity modulated radiation therapy dose calculations for head and neck cancer. American Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2005;28(5).
Faiz M. Khan. The physics of radiation therapy 3rd edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, New York; 2003.
Faiz M. Khan. treatment planning in radiation oncology. 2nd Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, New York; 2007.
Lees J, Holloway L, Fuller M, Forstner D. Effect of intravenous contrast on treatment planning system dose calculations in the lung. Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine. 2005;28(3).
Sahel H, Negin F, Abbas H. Influence of the contrast agents on treatment planning dose calculations of prostate and rectal cancers. Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy. 2016;21:441–446.