DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison study of intensity modulated arc therapy using single or multiple arcs to intensity modulated radiation therapy for high-risk prostate cancer

  • Received : 2013.04.23
  • Accepted : 2013.06.10
  • Published : 2013.06.30

Abstract

Purpose: Intensity modulated arc therapy (IMAT) is a form of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) that delivers dose in single or multiple arcs. We compared IMRT plans versus single-arc field (1ARC) and multi-arc fields (3ARC) IMAT plans in high-risk prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Sixteen patients were studied. Prostate ($PTV_P$), right pelvic ($PTV_{RtLN}$) and left pelvic lymph nodes ($PTV_{LtLN}$), and organs at risk were contoured. $PTV_P$, $PTV_{RtLN}$, and $PTV_{LtLN}$ received 50.40 Gy followed by a boost to $PTV_B$ of 28.80 Gy. Three plans were per patient generated: IMRT, 1ARC, and 3ARC. We recorded the dose to the PTV, the mean dose ($D_{MEAN}$) to the organs at risk, and volume covered by the 50% isodose. Efficiency was evaluated by monitor units (MU) and beam on time (BOT). Conformity index (CI), Paddick gradient index, and homogeneity index (HI) were also calculated. Results: Average Radiation Therapy Oncology Group CI was 1.17, 1.20, and 1.15 for IMRT, 1ARC, and 3ARC, respectively. The plans' HI were within 1% of each other. The $D_{MEAN}$ of bladder was within 2% of each other. The rectum $D_{MEAN}$ in IMRT plans was 10% lower dose than the arc plans (p < 0.0001). The GI of the 3ARC was superior to IMRT by 27.4% (p = 0.006). The average MU was highest in the IMRT plans (1686) versus 1ARC (575) versus 3ARC (1079). The average BOT was 6 minutes for IMRT compared to 1.3 and 2.9 for 1ARC and 3ARC IMAT (p < 0.05). Conclusion: For high-risk prostate cancer, IMAT may offer a favorable dose gradient profile, conformity, MU and BOT compared to IMRT.

Keywords

References

  1. Viani GA, Stefano EJ, Afonso SL. Higher-than-conventional radiation doses in localized prostate cancer treatment: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;74:1405-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.10.091
  2. Lawton CA, DeSilvio M, Roach M 3rd, et al. An update of the phase III trial comparing whole pelvic to prostate only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant to adjuvant total androgen suppression: updated analysis of RTOG 94-13, with emphasis on unexpected hormone/radiation interactions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;69:646-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.04.003
  3. Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Happersett L, et al. Clinical experience with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2000;55:241-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(99)00100-0
  4. Marks LB, Yorke ED, Jackson A, et al. Use of normal tissue complication probability models in the clinic. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76(3 Suppl):S10-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1754
  5. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. RTOG Clinical Trials [Internet]. Philadelphia, PA: RTOG; c2013 [cited 2013 May 23]. Available from: http://www.rtog.org/ClinicalTrials/ProtocolTable.aspx.
  6. Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Hunt M, et al. High-dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: early toxicity and biochemical outcome in 772 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;53:1111-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02857-2
  7. Pirzkall A, Carol MP, Pickett B, Xia P, Roach M 3rd, Verhey LJ. The effect of beam energy and number of fields on photonbased IMRT for deep-seated targets. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;53:434-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02750-5
  8. Otto K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys 2008;35:310-7. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2818738
  9. Oliver M, Ansbacher W, Beckham WA. Comparing planning time, delivery time and plan quality for IMRT, RapidArc and Tomotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2009;10:3068.
  10. Wolff D, Stieler F, Welzel G, et al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. serial tomotherapy, step-and-shoot IMRT and 3D-conformal RT for treatment of prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2009;93:226-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2009.08.011
  11. Palma D, Vollans E, James K, et al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy for delivery of prostate radiotherapy: comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72:996-1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.02.047
  12. Hall EJ, Wuu CS. Radiation-induced second cancers: the impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;56:83-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(03)00073-7
  13. Kopp RW, Duff M, Catalfamo F, Shah D, Rajecki M, Ahmad K. VMAT vs. 7-field-IMRT: assessing the dosimetric parameters of prostate cancer treatment with a 292-patient sample. Med Dosim 2011;36:365-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2010.09.004
  14. Tang G, Earl MA, Luan S, Wang C, Mohiuddin MM, Yu CX. Comparing radiation treatments using intensity-modulated beams, multiple arcs, and single arcs. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76:1554-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.003
  15. Verbakel WF, Cuijpers JP, Hoffmans D, Bieker M, Slotman BJ, Senan S. Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs. conventional IMRT in head-and-neck cancer: a comparative planning and dosimetric study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;74:252-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.12.033
  16. Alvarez-Moret J, Pohl F, Koelbl O, Dobler B. Evaluation of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with Oncentra MasterPlan for the treatment of head and neck cancer. Radiat Oncol 2010;5:110. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-5-110
  17. Wu QJ, Yoo S, Kirkpatrick JP, Thongphiew D, Yin FF. Volumetric arc intensity-modulated therapy for spine body radiotherapy: comparison with static intensity-modulated treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;75:1596-604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.05.005
  18. Ost P, Speleers B, De Meerleer G, et al. Volumetric arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for primary prostate radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost to intraprostatic lesion with 6 and 18 MV: a planning comparison study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;79:920-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.04.025
  19. Yoo S, Wu QJ, Lee WR, Yin FF. Radiotherapy treatment plans with RapidArc for prostate cancer involving seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;76:935-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1677

Cited by

  1. Comparison of the BANGkit™ and the PRESAGE™ gel dosimeters for use with a CCD-based optical CT scanner vol.64, pp.5, 2013, https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.64.740
  2. A comparative study of RapidArc and intensity-modulated radiotherapy plan quality for cervical cancer treatment vol.55, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4103/ijc.ijc_609_17
  3. Modeling scattered radiation from multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) to improve calculation accuracy of in-air output ratio vol.42, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-019-00781-2