Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10773/14995
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorFerreira, Brigida Costapt
dc.contributor.authorMarques, Rui Valept
dc.contributor.authorKhouri, Leilapt
dc.contributor.authorSantos, Tâniapt
dc.contributor.authorSá-Couto, Pedropt
dc.contributor.authorLopes, Maria do Carmopt
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-06T16:50:33Z-
dc.date.available2016-01-06T16:50:33Z-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.identifier.issn1748-717Xpt
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10773/14995-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To evaluate the differences between three methods of classification of recurrences in patients with head and neck tumours treated with Radiation Therapy (RT). Materials and methods: 367 patients with head and neck tumours were included in the study. Tumour recurrences were delineated in the CT images taken during patient follow-up and deformable registration was used to transfer this volume into the planning CT. The methods used to classify recurrences were: methodCTV quantified the intersection volume between the recurrence and the Clinical Target Volume (CTV); methodTV quantified the intersection between the Treated Volume and the recurrence (for method CTV and TV, recurrences were classified in-field if more than 95% of their volume were inside the volume of interest, marginal if the intersection was between 20-95% and outfield otherwise); and methodCOM was based on the position of the Centre Of Mass of the recurrence. A dose assessment in the recurrence volume was also made. Results: The 2-year Kaplan-Meier locoregional recurrence incidence was 10%. Tumour recurrences occurred in 22 patients in a mean time of 16.5 ± 9.4 months resulting in 28 recurrence volumes. The percentage of in-field recurrences for methods CTV, TV and COM was 7%, 43% and 50%, respectively. Agreement between the three methods in characterizing individually in-field and marginal recurrences was found only in six cases. Methods CTV and COM agreed in 14. The percentage of outfield recurrences was 29% using all methods. For local recurrences (in-field or marginal to gross disease) the average difference between the prescribed dose and D 98% in the recurrence volume was -5.2 ± 3.5% (range: -10.1%-0.9%). Conclusions: The classification of in-field and marginal recurrences is very dependent on the method used to characterize recurrences. Using methods TV and COM the largest percentage of tumour recurrences occurred in-field in tissues irradiated with high doses. Keywords: Head and neck tumours, Radiation therapy, Characterization of tumour recurrences, Geometric methods, Dosimetric assessmentpt
dc.language.isoengpt
dc.publisherBioMed Centralpt
dc.relationCIDMA/FCT - PEst-OE/MAT/UI4106/2014pt
dc.relationFCT - PEst-C/CTM/LA0025/2011pt
dc.rightsopenAccesspor
dc.subjectHead and neck tumourspt
dc.subjectRadiation therapypt
dc.subjectCharacterization of tumour recurrencespt
dc.subjectGeometric methodspt
dc.subjectDosimetric assessmentpt
dc.titleAssessment and topographic characterization of locoregional recurrences in head and neck tumourspt
dc.typearticlept
dc.peerreviewedyespt
ua.distributioninternationalpt
degois.publication.firstPage10pt
degois.publication.lastPage41pt
degois.publication.titleRadiation Oncolologypt
degois.publication.volume15pt
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13014-015-0345-4pt
Appears in Collections:CIDMA - Artigos
PSG - Artigos

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
2015 Ferreira Recidives RadOncol.pdfMain article579.9 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


FacebookTwitterLinkedIn
Formato BibTex MendeleyEndnote Degois 

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.