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
  • [31] Tomotherapy & IMAT inverse planned: Dosimetric and radiobiological comparisons on prostate tumor treatments
    Iori, M.
    Cagni, E.
    Cattaneo, G. M.
    Fiorino, C.
    Nahum, A.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2007, 84 : S198 - S198
  • [32] Dosimetric comparison of Linac-IMRT and helical tomotherapy (HT) for head and neck cancer
    Zhang, X.
    Penagaricano, J.
    Moros, E.
    Corry, P.
    Ivy, A.
    Yan, Y.
    Youssef, E.
    Ratanatharathorn, V.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2007, 34 (06) : 2593 - 2593
  • [33] DOSIMETRIC VERIFICATION OF INTENSITY MODULATED RADIOTHERAPY (IMRT) TREATMENT PLANS FOR PROSTATE CANCER PATIENTS
    Mrcela, Iva
    Gregov, Marin
    Matanic, Ante
    Budanec, Mirjana
    Murgic, Jure
    Jaksic, Blanka
    Prpic, Marin
    Secan, Angela Prgomet
    Frobe, Ana
    ACTA CLINICA CROATICA, 2022, 61 : 21 - 27
  • [34] Dosimetric evaluation of TomoTherapy plans
    Zhang, Y
    Kupelian, P
    Langen, K
    McNerney, G
    Poole, D
    Willoughby, T
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2004, 31 (06) : 1732 - 1732
  • [35] Radiobiological Comparison of Planned and Delivered Prostate IMRT/VMAT Plans Using 3DVH Software
    Hedrick, K.
    Rankine, L.
    Chen, R.
    Das, S.
    Mavroidis, P.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 44 (06) : 2896 - 2896
  • [36] A Dosimetric Comparison of IMPT, DSPT, and IMRT for Low Risk Prostate Cancer
    Corradetti, M. N.
    Vapiwala, N.
    Zhai, H.
    Lin, H.
    Bui, V.
    Deville, C.
    Bekelman, J.
    Christodouleas, J.
    Tochner, Z.
    Both, S.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2011, 81 (02): : S444 - S445
  • [37] Proton therapy vs. IMRT for prostate cancer: A dosimetric comparison
    Lee, A. K.
    Kudchadker, R. J.
    Amos, R. A.
    Johnson, J. L.
    Choi, S. L.
    Kuban, D. A.
    Cox, J. D.
    Mohan, R.
    Gillin, M.
    Dong, L.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2007, 69 (03): : S342 - S342
  • [38] DOSIMETRIC COMPARISON OF TOMOTHERAPY IMRT AND 3DCRT FOR CRANIOSPINAL IRRADIATION
    Bandurska, A.
    Piotrowski, T.
    Skrobala, A.
    Ryczkowski, A.
    Kazmierska, J.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2010, 96 : S259 - S259
  • [39] A dosimetric comparison of Helical Tomotherapy and VMAT in the treatment of high risk prostate cancer
    Lacornerie, T.
    Cavillon, F.
    Hardhuin, R.
    Compte, P.
    Reynaert, N.
    Lartigau, E. F.
    Pasquier, D.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2014, 111 : S202 - S202
  • [40] A comparison of prostate IMRT and helical tomotherapy class solutions
    Rodrigues, George
    Yartsev, Slav
    Chen, Jeff
    Wong, Eugene
    D'Souza, David
    Lock, Michael
    Bauman, Glenn
    Grigorov, Grigor
    Kron, Tomas
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2006, 80 (03) : 374 - 377