{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032157676348547715, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012966804979253113, 'mean_word_length': 5.242718446601942, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Dosimetric comparison of different treatment planning techniques with International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements Report-83 recommendations in adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy of gynecological malignancies.

AIM
The study evaluates the different treatment planning techniques according to three recommendation levels of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements Report-83 in gynecologic cancer patients treated with adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy (APR).


MATERIALS AND METHODS
Computerized tomography images of ten endometrial and cervical cancer patients who were treated with APR were assessed. For each patient, five different treatment plans were created. One homogeneity index and four different conformity indexes (CIs) were calculated for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), field-in-field (FIF), seven-field intensity modulated radiotherapy (7-IMRT) with two different degrees beginning (7A-IMRT, 7B-IMRT) and 9-IMRT treatment plans. Dose volume histogram parameters and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were compared for organs at risk (OAR).


RESULTS
The CI values of the IMRT were closer to 1 with respect to other plans (P < 0.05). The rectum and the bladder volumes which received more than 40 Gy were decreased with IMRT compared to 3D-CRT (P < 0.05). Doses received by the 195 cc volume of the small intestine and NTCP values were significantly decreased with IMRT (P < 0.05).


CONCLUSION
IMRT provided more protection than FIF plans at high dose volumes of the OAR; however, it did not show any superiority at low-dose volumes. The NTCP results supported IMRT for only small intestine protection. Because IMRT is increasingly used clinically, the comparison of NTCP will become more common in the near future. Therefore, new prospective studies with sufficient number of patients and appropriate NTCP models are needed for this treatment modality.