Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of TomoTherapy and IMRT plans for prostate cancer

被引:1
|
作者
Pourfarshid, Amin [1 ]
Mesbahi, Asghar [2 ,3 ]
Mohammadzadeh, Mohammad [4 ,5 ]
Molazadeh, Mikaeil [2 ]
Zeinali, Ahad [1 ]
机构
[1] Urmia Univ Med Sci, Fac Med, Dept Med Phys, Orumiyeh 5756115198, Iran
[2] Tabriz Univ Med Sci, Fac Med, Dept Med Phys, Tabriz, Iran
[3] Med Radiat Res Team, Melbourne, Australia
[4] Tabriz Univ Med Sci, Sch Med, Dept Radiol & Radiotherapy, Tabriz, Iran
[5] Tabriz Univ Med Sci, Shahid Madani Hosp, Radiotherapy Dept, Tabriz, Iran
关键词
TomoTherapy; IMRT; Prostate; TCP; NTCP; Radiobiology; INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIOTHERAPY; HELICAL TOMOTHERAPY; CONFORMAL RADIOTHERAPY; ARC THERAPY;
D O I
10.1016/j.radphyschem.2024.112356
中图分类号
O64 [物理化学(理论化学)、化学物理学];
学科分类号
070304 ; 081704 ;
摘要
The purpose of this study was to investigate the dosimetric and radiobiological parameters of IMRT and TomoTherapy techniques to determine the best technique for the treatment of prostate cancer. Dynamic IMRT and Helical TomoTherapy (HT) radiotherapy techniques were used for the treatment planning of 10 patients with prostate cancer. Tumor Control Probability (TCP) and Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) based on Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) and Relative Seriality (RS) models as radiobiological parameters in addition to the multiple dosimetrics including Equivalent Uniform Dose (EUD), Heterogeneity Index (HI), and Conformity Index (CI) were evaluated. The mean NTCP value based on the LKB model for the IMRT method was higher than that for the HT method by approximately 4.62% for the bladder and 4.89% for the rectum, respectively. Similarly, in the RS model, the average NTCP values for IMRT were approximately 4.14% and 12.78% for the bladder and rectum, higher than the HT. The mean values of the HI and CI indices in IMRT were obtained as 0.06 f 0.01 and 1.13 f 0.08, respectively. With the HT technique, the index values were equal to 0.04 f 0.01 and 1.09 f 0.05, respectively. The mean doses to the rectum and right/left femoral heads were 13.19%, 11.32%, and 10.90% higher in IMRT than in HT, respectively. However, the mean dose to the bladder tissue was 17.13% higher in HT than in IMRT. Our study demonstrated that HT plans were superior to IMRT plans in terms of estimated NTCP using radiobiological models (LKB and RS) for healthily tissues. Except for the higher treatment duration, while having a desired and uniform dose distribution to the tumor, the TomoTherapy technique leads to preservation of healthy organs.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison for quality assurance of IMRT and VMAT plans
    Paudel, Nava Raj
    Narayanasamy, Ganesh
    Han, Eun Young
    Penagaricano, Jose
    Mavroidis, Panayiotis
    Zhang, Xin
    Pyakuryal, Anil
    Kim, Dongwook
    Liang, Xiaoying
    Morrill, Steven
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 18 (05): : 237 - 244
  • [2] Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of Cyberknife and Tomotherapy in stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer
    Chen, Chun-You
    Lee, Liang-Ming
    Yu, Hsiao-Wei
    Lee, Steve P.
    Lee, Hsin-Lun
    Lin, Yung-Wei
    Wen, Yu-Ching
    Chen, Yi-Ju
    Chen, Chiu-Ping
    Tsai, Jo-Ting
    JOURNAL OF X-RAY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2017, 25 (03) : 465 - 477
  • [3] VMAT PLANS FOR TREATMENT OF PROSTATE CANCER: DOSIMETRIC VERIFICATIONS AND COMPARISON WITH IMRT
    Masi, L.
    Doro, R.
    Casamassima, F.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2009, 92 : S197 - S198
  • [4] TOMOTHERAPY, 3D OR IMRT: COMPARISON OF CALCULATED DOSIMETRIC PLANS
    Lacombe, C.
    Letenneur, G.
    Moeckli, R.
    Mirimanoff, R. O.
    Pachoud, M.
    STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE, 2008, 184 (11) : 631 - 631
  • [5] Dosimetric IMRT plans comparison between helical tomotherapy and linac-based IMRT for head and neck cancer
    Zefkili, S.
    Fancois, P.
    Mazal, A.
    Giraudz, P.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2007, 84 : S207 - S208
  • [6] A dosimetric analysis comparing TomoTherapy and IMRT in the treatment of prostate cancer
    Shah, A. P.
    Chen, S.
    Strauss, J. B.
    Coon, A. B.
    Miller, C.
    Brolley, L.
    Turian, J.
    Chu, J.
    Kirk, M.
    Dickler, A. T.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2007, 69 (03): : S383 - S383
  • [7] Dosimetric and physical comparison of IMRT and CyberKnife plans in the treatment of localized prostate cancer
    Ceylan, Cemile
    Kucuk, Nadir
    Ayata, Hande Bas
    Guden, Metin
    Engin, Kayihan
    REPORTS OF PRACTICAL ONCOLOGY AND RADIOTHERAPY, 2010, 15 (06) : 181 - 189
  • [8] Dosimetric and physical comparison of IMRT and CyberKnife plans in the treatment of localized prostate cancer
    Ceylan, Cemile
    Kucuk, Nadir
    Bas Ayata, Hande
    Kilic, Ayhan
    Guden, Metin
    Engin, Kayihan
    TURK ONKOLOJI DERGISI-TURKISH JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY, 2010, 25 (03): : 93 - 103
  • [9] DOSIMETRIC COMPARISON OF HELICAL TOMOTHERAPY AND LINAC-IMRT TREATMENT PLANS FOR HEAD AND NECK CANCER PATIENTS
    Zhang, Xin
    Penagaricano, Jose
    Moros, Eduardo G.
    Corry, Peter M.
    Yan, Yulong
    Ratanatharathorn, Vaneerat
    MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2010, 35 (04) : 264 - 268
  • [10] A Dosimetric Comparison of Prostate Plans: IMRT, SmartArc, RapidArc and HybridArc
    Rule, W. G.
    Jiang, L.
    Boike, T.
    Anderson, J.
    Jain, S.
    Heinzerling, J.
    DeRose, P.
    Edwards, M.
    Tong, L.
    Solberg, T.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2010, 78 (03): : S847 - S847