Progress in Medical Physics (한국의학물리학회지:의학물리)

Korean Society of Medical Physics (한국의학물리학회)
권호 표지

First Clinical Experience about RapidArc Treatment with Prostate Cancer in Ajou University Hospital

아주대학교병원에서의 전립선암에 대한 래피드아크 치료

  • Park, Hae-Jin (Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Mi-Hwa (Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University Hospital) ;
  • Chun, Mi-Son (Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University Hospital) ;
  • Oh, Young-Teak (Department of Radiation Oncology, Ajou University Hospital) ;
  • Suh, Tae-Suk (Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • 박혜진 (아주대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 김미화 (아주대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 전미선 (아주대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 오영택 (아주대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 서태석 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 의공학교실)
  • Received : 2010.03.17
  • Accepted : 2010.06.07
  • Published : 2010.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, the patient with localized prostate cancer who had previously been treated at Ajou University Hospital was randomly selected since March, 2009. we performed IMRT and 2RA plans and the same dose objectives were used for CTVs, PTVs, rectum, bladder, and femoral head of the respective plans. Arc optimizations and dose calculations were performed using Eclipse versions 8.6. In this paper, we evaluated the performance of IMRT and RA plans to investigate the clinical effect of RA for prostate cancer case. In our comparison of treatment techniques, RA was found to be superior to IMRT being better dose conformity of target volume. As for the rectum and bladder, RA was better than IMRT at decreasing the volume irradiated. RA has the ability to avoid critical organs selectively through applied same dose constraints while maximally treating the target dose. Therefore, this result suggests that there should be less rectal toxicity with RA compared with IMRT, with no compromise in tumor margin. These findings, which show more favorable rectal, bladder, and femoral head DVHs with RA, imply that should not result in excess risk of toxicity when this technique is used. Many experiences with RA have shown not only dosimetric advantage, but also improved clinical toxicity when comparing with IMRT. The main drawbacks of RA are the more complex and time-consuming treatment planning process and the need for more exact physics quality assurance (QA).

본 논문에서는 세기조절방사선치료와 이중회전(double arcs)을 통한 래피드아크 치료용 치료계획을 수행하였고, 각각의 선량분포와 DVH의 특성을 비교, 평가하였다. 또한 정도관리를 통해 래피드아크 치료에 대한 신뢰도 및 정확도를 평가하고 이러한 과정들을 통해 환자에 대한 적절한 치료방법을 제시하고자 하였다. 두 치료기술에 대한 치료계획 시 임상표적 용적(Clinical Target Volume, CTV)과 치료표적용적(Planning Target Volume, PTV)과 직장에 동일한 최적화 조건을 적용하였고, 그 외 정상조직에 대하여 최적화 조건 없이 가장 단순화한 조건에서 최적화의 능력과 결과 차이를 비교하였다. 래피드아크는 세기조절방사선치료와 비교하였을 때 동일한 선량제한치 적용 후 결과는 종양에 전달되는 선량은 증가하고 손상위험장기에 대해서는 더 보호하는 능력을 보여주고 있다. 따라서 세기조절방사선치료와 비교하였을 때 치료부피와 주변 장기의 부작용에 대하여 주변장기에 대한 조사선량은 줄이면서 종양에는 더 많은 선량이 조사되었다. 본 연구를 통하여 래피드아크 치료는 기존에 시행하고 있는 세기조절방사선치료 기법보다 더욱 최적의 선량 분포를 구현하고, 치료시간에 있어 보다 효율적이라는 것을 알 수 있었다. 그리고 정밀한 치료 기법인 만큼 정확한 래피드아크 치료를 시행하기 위해서는 치료 계획과 실제로 시행되는 치료가 일치하는지 확인하는 정도관리 과정이 반드시 필요하다는 것을 알 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Muren LP, Wasbo E, Helle SI, et al: Intensity-modulatedradiotherapy of pelvic lymph nodes in locally advanced prostatecancer: Planning procedures and early experiences. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 71:1034-1041 (2009)
  2. Liu YM, Shiau CY, Lee ML, et al: The role and strategyof IMRT in radiotherapy of pelvis tumors: Dose escalation andcritical organ sparing in prostate cancer. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 67:1113-1123 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.10.009
  3. Iori M, Cattaneo GM, Cagni E, et al: Dose-volume and biological-model based comparision between helical tomotherapyand (inverse-planned) IMAT for prostate tumours. Radiother Oncol 88:34-45 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2008.03.003
  4. Otto K: Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a singlegantry arc. Med Phys 35:310-317 (2007)
  5. Korreman S, Medin J, Kjar-Kristoffersen F: Dosimetricverificatio of RapidArc treatment delivery. Acta Oncol 48:185-191(2009) https://doi.org/10.1080/02841860802287116
  6. Otto K: Patient-specific quality assurance method for VAMTtreatment delivery. Med Phys 36:4530-4535 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3213085
  7. Popescu CC, Olivotto IA, Beckham WA, et al: Volumetricmodulated arc therapy improves dosimetry and reduces treatmenttime compared to conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapyfor locoregional radiotherapy of left-sided breast cancerand internal mammary nodes. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 76:287-295 (2009)
  8. Palma D, Vollans EPJ, James K, et al: Volumetric modulatedarc therapy for delivery of prostate radiotherapy: Comparisionwith intensity-modulated radiotherapy and three-dimensionalconformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 72:996-1001 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.02.047
  9. Verbakel WFAR, Cuijpers JP, Hoffmans D, et al: Volumetricintensity-modulated arc therapy VS. conventional IMRT inHead-and-Neck cancer: A comparision planning and dosimetricstudy. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 74:252-259 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.12.033
  10. Zhang P, Happersett L, Hunt M, et al: Volumetric modulatedarc therapy: Planning and evaluation for prostate cancercases. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 76:1456-1462 (2009)
  11. Lagerwaard FJ, Meijer OWM, Hoorn EAP, et al: Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for vestibular schwannomas. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 74:610-615 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.12.076
  12. Kjar-Kristoffersen F, Ohlhues L, Medin J, et al: Rapid-Arc volumetric modulated therapy planning for prostate cancerpatients. Acta Oncol 48:227-232 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1080/02841860802266748
  13. Vanetti E, Clivio A, Nicolini G, et al: Volumetric-modulatedarc radiotherapy for carcinomas of the oro-pharynx: atreatment planning comparison with fixed field IMRT. Radiother Oncol 92:111-117 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2008.12.008
  14. Clivio A, Fogliata A, Franzetti-Pellanda A, et al: Volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy for carcinomas of the analcanal: A treatment planning comparison with fixed field IMRT. Radiother Oncol 92:118-124 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2008.12.020
  15. Vanetti E, Clivio A, Nicolini G, et al: A treatment planningstudy comparing volumetric ar modulatio with RapidArc and fixedfield IMRT for cervix uteri radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 89:180-191 (2009)
  16. Benford JL, Hansen VN, Mcnair HA, et al: Treatment oflung cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and imageauidance: A case study. Acta Oncol 47:1438-1443 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1080/02841860802282778
  17. Verbakel WFAR, Cuijpers SSJP, Slotman BJ, et al:Rapid delivery of sterotactic radiotherapy for peripheral lung tumorsusing volumetric intensity-modulated arcs. Radiother Oncol 93:122-124 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2009.05.020
  18. Bignardi M, Cozzi L, Fogliata A, et al: Critical appraisalof volumetric modulatd arc therapy in sterotactic body radiationtherapy for metastases to abdominal lymph nodes. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 75:1570-1577 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.05.035
  19. Litzenberg DW, Balter JM, Hadley SW, et al: Influenceof intrafraction motion on margins for prostate radiotherapy. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 65:548-553 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.12.033
  20. Willoughby TR, Kupelian PA, Pouliot J, et al: Target localization and real-time tracking using the calypso 4D localization system in patients with localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 65:528-534 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.01.050
  21. Langen KM, Pouliot J, Anezinos C, et al: Evaluation ofultrasound-based prostate localization for image-guided radiotherapy. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 57:635-644 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(03)00633-3