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
  • [41] Postoperative Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A Comparison of Four Consensus Guidelines and Dosimetric Evaluation of 3D-CRT Versus Tomotherapy IMRT
    Malone, Shawn
    Croke, Jennifer
    Roustan-Delatour, Nicolas
    Belanger, Eric
    Avruch, Leonard
    Malone, Colin
    Morash, Christopher
    Kayser, Cathleen
    Underhill, Kathryn
    Li, Yan
    Malone, Kyle
    Nyiri, Balazs
    Spaans, Johanna
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2012, 84 (03): : 725 - 732
  • [42] Radiobiological Assessment of IMRT Treatment Plans
    Wang, H.
    Das, I. J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2017, 99 (02): : E735 - E736
  • [43] Radiobiological evaluation of prostate cancer IMRT and conformal-RT plans using different treatment protocols
    Mavroidis, Panayiotis
    Komisopoulos, Georgios
    Buckey, Courtney
    Mavroeidi, Margarita
    Swanson, Gregory P.
    Baltas, Dimos
    Papanikolaou, Nikos
    Stathakis, Sotirios
    PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2017, 40 : 33 - 41
  • [44] Dosimetric Comparison of IMRT Prostate Treatment Using Step&shoot (MLC and MMLC), Dynamic MLC and Tomotherapy
    Venencia, C.
    Delgado, J.
    Caballero, C.
    Zunino, S.
    Pipman, Y.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2011, 38 (06) : 3681 - +
  • [45] Dosimetric figures-of-merit based comparison of three IMRT modalities: Helical tomotherapy, sequential tomotherapy and DMLC-IMRT
    Duan, J.
    Shen, S.
    Popple, R.
    Wu, X.
    Pareek, P.
    Brezovich, I.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2006, 33 (06) : 2092 - 2092
  • [46] Dosimetric comparison of treatment plans for pancreatic cancer: 3DCRT, IMRT and VMAT
    Trecca, P.
    Fiore, M.
    Floreno, B.
    D'Angelillo, R.
    Trodella, L.
    Mameli, A.
    Infusino, E.
    Greco, C.
    Trodella, L.
    Ramella, S.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2017, 123 : S852 - S853
  • [47] Dosimetric studies of mixed field IMRT for prostate cancer using multi optimization on treatment plans
    Kummali, A.
    Cyriac, T. Siji
    Shakir, K. K.
    Siddartha, A.
    Musthafa, M. M.
    Ganaptraman, R.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2014, 111 : S198 - S198
  • [48] Dosimetric Comparison of RapidPlan and Manually Optimized Plans in IMRT for Postoperative Left Breast Cancer
    Sun, T.
    Lin, X.
    Yin, Y.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 45 (06) : E291 - E291
  • [49] Comparison of flattening filter applied and not applied IMRT plans in prostate cancer
    Guneyli, O.
    Erdogan, E.
    Garipagaoglu, M.
    Kucucuk, H.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2014, 111 : S196 - S196
  • [50] Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Comparisons of IMRT, Tomotherapy and CyberKnife
    Scobioala, S.
    Thiyagarajah, J.
    Haverkamp, U.
    Ernst, I
    Adamietz, I
    Eich, H. T.
    STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE, 2015, 191 : S57 - S58