Radiation dermatitis caused by a bolus effect from an abdominal compression device.
American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 176 evaluated the dosimetric effects caused by couch tops and immobilization devices. The report analyzed the extensive physics-based literature on couch tops, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) frames, and body immobilization bags, while noting the scarcity of clinical reports of skin toxicity because of external devices. Here, we present a clinical case report of grade 1 abdominal skin toxicity owing to an abdominal compression device. We discuss the dosimetric implications of the utilized treatment plan as well as post hoc alternative plans and quantify differences in attenuation and skin dose/build-up between the device, a lower-density alternative device, and an open field. The description of the case includes a 66-year-old male with HER2 amplified poorly differentiated distal esophageal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemo-radiation and the use of an abdominal compression device. Radiation was delivered using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with 2 arcs using abdominal compression and image guidance. The total dose was 50.4Gy delivered over 40 elapsed days. With 2 fractions remaining, the patient developed dermatitis in the area of the compression device. The original treatment plan did not include a contour of the device. Alternative post hoc treatment plans were generated, one to contour the device and a second with anterior avoidance. In conclusion, replanning with the device contoured revealed the bolus effect. The skin dose increased from 27 to 36Gy. planned target volume (PTV) coverage at 45Gy was reduced to 76.5% from 95.8%. The second VMAT treatment plan with an anterior avoidance sector and more oblique beam angles maintained PTV coverage and spared the anterior wall, however at the expense of substantially increased dose to lung. This case report provides an important reminder of the bolus effect from external devices such as abdominal compression. Special consideration must be given to contour and/or avoiding beam entrance to the device, and to the use of such devices in patients who may have heightened radiosensitivity, such as those who are human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive.
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA.
Michael
M
Connor
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA.
Randy L
RL
Wei
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA.
Suhong
S
Yu
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA.
Varun
V
Sehgal
Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of California, Orange, CA.
Samuel J
SJ
Klempner
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange, CA. Electronic address: pdaroui@uci.edu.
Parima
P
Daroui
D000230:Adenocarcinoma / Q000473:pathology / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D000368:Aged; D004938:Esophageal Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011855:Radiodermatitis / Q000209:etiology*; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000295:instrumentation*; D047368:Tumor Burden
Abdominal; Bolus; Compression; Device; Skin; VMAT