A treatment planning study comparing @entity499 with intensity-modulated radiotherapy for the treatment of XXXX .

@entity5 @entity1 @entity499 @entity343
PURPOSE: A planning study to compare @entity499 ( @entity499 ) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for the treatment of anal canal @entity5 . MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen (8 males and 8 females) @entity1 with @entity5 previously treated radically were identified. @entity499 and IMRT plans were generated and dosimetric comparisons of the plans were performed. The planning goals were to deliver 54Gy to the @entity5 ( @entity343 (54Gy)) and 48Gy to the nodes at risk ( @entity343 (Node)) in 30 fractions. RESULTS: PTVs: @entity499 plans were more homogeneous for both @entity1 and @entity1 . Male @entity1 : @entity499 vs. IMRT: D(max): 55.87+/-0.58 vs. 59.17+/-3.24 (p=0.036); D(min): 52.91+/-0.36 vs. 44.09+/-6.84 (p=0.012); female @entity1 : @entity499 vs. IMRT: D(max): 56.14+/-0.71 vs. 59.47+/-0.81 (p=0.012); D(min): 52.36+/-0.87 vs. 50.97+/-1.42 (p=0.028). OARs: In general, @entity499 plans delivered a lower dose to the peritoneal cavity, external genitalia and the bladder and IMRT plans resulted in greater sparing of the pelvic bones (iliac crest/femur) for both @entity1 and @entity1 . Iliac crest/femur: the difference was significant only for the mean V10Gy of iliac crest in @entity1 (p< or =0.012). External genitalia: @entity499 plans achieved better sparing in @entity1 compared to @entity1 (p< or =0.046). For @entity1 , the mean doses were 18.96+/-3.17 and 15.72+/-3.21 for the @entity499 and IMRT plan, respectively (p< or =0.017). Skin: both techniques achieved comparable sparing of the non-target skin (p=NS). CONCLUSIONS: @entity499 and IMRT techniques achieved comparable target dose coverage and organ sparing, whereas @entity499 plans were more homogeneous for both @entity1 and @entity1 .
