Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The study compares two patient setups (Standard Prone vs. Genital Drop Technique) with identical radiation treatment technique and parameters. After the two setups have been planned, the treating faculty reviews the setups and will choose the setup he feels that will give the patient improved dosimetry to the local regions and hopefully reduce toxicity and improve treatment tolerability.
This is a study of two different setups when treating a patient with standard of care radiation doses. The study compares two patient setups (Standard Prone vs. Genital Drop Technique) with identical radiation treatment technique and parameters. After the two setups have been planned, the treating faculty reviews the setups and will choose the setup he feels that will give the patient improved dosimetry to the local regions and hopefully reduce toxicity and improve treatment tolerability.
Patients will not be randomized or stratified by demographic or disease risk assessment, but treatment will be tailored to stage specific current standards of care.
An extra (non standard of care) CT is required to analyze the data.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| The Genital Drop Technique (IMRT-GD) decreased the radiation dose to the testicles scrotal skin and penile shaft compared to standard prone technique. | The Genital Drop Technique (IMRT-GD) decreased the radiation dose to the testicles, scrotal skin and penile shaft compared to the standard conformal radiation therapy (CRT) and IMRT plans while preserving adequate planned target volume (PTV) dose coverage and homogeneity to the target organs in male anal cancer patients. | Day 1. Pretreatment analysis. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Dosimetry comparison details. | Testicular dose: Volume receiving 14 Gy was 90% with CRT, 64% with IMRT, and 3% with IMRT-GD. Testicular dose: Volume receiving 30 Gy was 54% with CRT, 26% with IMRT, and 0% with IMRT-GD. External genitalia dose: Volume receiving 14 Gy was 93% with CRT, 79% with IMRT, and 35% with IMRT-GD. External genitalia dose: Volume receiving 30 Gy was 75% with CRT, 31% with IMRT, and 12% with IMRT-GD. Planning Target Volume receiving full 54 Gy dose was 93% with CRT, 93% with IMRT, and 94% with IMRT-GD. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria
Not provided
Not provided
Male anal cancer and distal rectal cancer patients 18 years or older.
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Grant R. Seeger, MD | The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston | Galveston | Texas | 77550 | United States |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D001005 | Anus Neoplasms |
| D009369 | Neoplasms |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D012004 | Rectal Neoplasms |
| D015179 | Colorectal Neoplasms |
| D007414 | Intestinal Neoplasms |
| D005770 | Gastrointestinal Neoplasms |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Day 1. Pretreatment parameters. |
| D004067 |
| Digestive System Neoplasms |
| D009371 | Neoplasms by Site |
| D004066 | Digestive System Diseases |
| D005767 | Gastrointestinal Diseases |
| D007410 | Intestinal Diseases |
| D001004 | Anus Diseases |
| D012002 | Rectal Diseases |