Radiation Oncology Journal

The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology (대한방사선종양학회)
권호 표지
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
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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