Treatment planning comparison of IMPT, VMAT and 4π radiotherapy for prostate cases

被引:69
|
作者
Tran, Angelia [1 ]
Zhang, Jingjing [2 ]
Woods, Kaley [1 ]
Yu, Victoria [1 ]
Dan Nguyen [1 ]
Gustafson, Gary [2 ]
Rosen, Lane [3 ]
Sheng, Ke [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Radiat Oncol, 200 Med Plaza Way,Suite B265, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
[2] Beaumont Hlth Syst, Dept Radiat Oncol, Royal Oak, MI USA
[3] Willis Knighton Canc Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, Shreveport, LA USA
来源
Radiation Oncology | 2017年 / 12卷
关键词
Prostate cancer; 4 pi radiotherapy; Intensity modulated proton therapy; Volumetric modulated arc therapy; BODY RADIATION-THERAPY; PROTON THERAPY; HELICAL TOMOTHERAPY; DOSE-ESCALATION; CANCER; IMRT; MODULATION; DELIVERY; SYSTEM; TUMORS;
D O I
10.1186/s13014-016-0761-0
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), non-coplanar 4 pi intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) represent the most advanced treatment methods based on heavy ion and X-rays, respectively. Here we compare their performance for prostate cancer treatment. Methods: Ten prostate patients were planned using IMPT with robustness optimization, VMAT, and 4 pi to an initial dose of 54 Gy to a clinical target volume (CTV) that encompassed the prostate and seminal vesicles, then a boost prescription dose of 25.2 Gy to the prostate for a total dose of 79.2 Gy. The IMPT plans utilized two coplanar, oblique scanning beams 10 degrees posterior of the lateral beam positions. Range uncertainties were taken into consideration in the IMPT plans. VMAT plans used two full, coplanar arcs to ensure sufficient PTV coverage. 4 pi plans were created by inversely selecting and optimizing 30 beams from 1162 candidate non-coplanar beams using a greedy column generation algorithm. CTV doses, bladder and rectum dose volumes (V40, V45, V60, V65, V70, V75, and V80), R100, R50, R10, and CTV homogeneity index (D95/D5) were evaluated. Results: Compared to IMPT, 4p resulted in lower anterior rectal wall mean dose as well as lower rectum V40, V45, V60, V65, V70, and V75. Due to the opposing beam arrangement, IMPT resulted in significantly (p < 0.05) greater femoral head doses. However, IMPT plans had significantly lower bladder, rectum, and anterior rectal wall max dose. IMPT doses were also significantly more homogeneous than 4 pi and VMAT doses. Conclusion: Compared to the VMAT and 4 pi plans, IMPT treatment plans are superior in CTV homogeneity and maximum point organ-at-risk (OAR) doses with the exception of femur heads. IMPT is inferior in rectum and bladder volumes receiving intermediate to high doses, particularly to the 4 pi plans, but significantly reduced low dose spillage and integral dose, which are correlated to secondary cancer for patients with expected long survival. The dosimetric benefits of 4 pi plans over VMAT are consistent with the previous publication.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Automated proton IMPT treatment planning for plan comparison for breast cancer
    Wolf, Anne Lisa
    Jacobs, Jenneke
    Wang, Yibing
    Wijnbergen, Diede
    Licup, Albert
    Piedade, Mariana
    Malefijt, Angelo
    Bosma, Sophie
    Hoogeman, Mischa
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2024, 194 : S4649 - S4652
  • [32] Dosimetric Comparison of Cyberknife Versus Linac Based VMAT Stereotactic Treatment Planning for Localised Prostate Cancer
    Senniandavar, V.
    Vikraman, S.
    Kp, K.
    Rajesh, T.
    Sambasivaselli, R.
    Ramu, M.
    Maragathaveni, S.
    Dhivya, N.
    Tejinder, K.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (06) : 3403 - 3403
  • [33] Assessment of HDR brachytherapy-replicating prostate radiotherapy planning for tomotherapy, cyberknife and VMAT
    de Chavez, Romena
    Grogan, Garry
    Hug, Ben
    Howe, Kate
    Grigg, Alice
    Waterhouse, David
    Lane, Jonathan
    Glyde, Alan
    Brown, Elizabeth
    Bydder, Sean
    Pryor, David
    Hargrave, Cathy
    Charles, Paul H.
    Hellyer, James
    Ebert, Martin A.
    MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2022, 47 (01) : 61 - 69
  • [34] Treatment planning optimization for proton IMPT
    Wang, N
    Coutrakon, G
    Miller, D
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2004, 31 (06) : 1799 - 1799
  • [35] Radiotherapy treatment of early-stage prostate cancer with IMRT and protons: A treatment planning comparison
    Trofimov, Alexei
    Nguyen, Paul L.
    Coen, John J.
    Doppke, Karen P.
    Schneider, Robert J.
    Adams, Judith A.
    Bortfeld, Thomas R.
    Zietman, Anthony L.
    DeLaney, Thomas F.
    Shipley, William U.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2007, 69 (02): : 444 - 453
  • [36] Dosimetric Comparison of IMRT and VMAT for Retinoblastoma Treatment: A treatment Planning Study
    Patil, Deepali
    Madhawi, Richa
    Zope, Mukesh K. U. M. A. R.
    TURK ONKOLOJI DERGISI-TURKISH JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY, 2025, 40 (01): : 51 - 59
  • [37] STATIC AND ROTATIONAL IMRT VERSUS IMPT FOR ADVANCED PROSTATE CANCER: A TREATMENT PLANNING STUDY
    Kragl, G.
    Fotina, I.
    Knaeus, B.
    Goldner, G.
    Georg, P.
    Stock, M.
    Georg, D.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2010, 96 : S565 - S565
  • [38] Optimized treatment planning for prostate cancer comparing IMPT, VHEET and 15 MV IMXT
    Yeboah, C
    Sandison, GA
    PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2002, 47 (13): : 2247 - 2261
  • [39] COMPARISON OF PROSTATE IMRT AND VMAT BIOLOGICALLY OPTIMISED TREATMENT PLANS
    Hardcastle, Nicholas
    Tome, Wolfgang A.
    Foo, Kerwyn
    Miller, Andrew
    Carolan, Martin
    Metcalfe, Peter
    MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2011, 36 (03) : 292 - 298
  • [40] MRI-based IMPT planning for prostate cancer
    Depauw, Nicolas
    Keyrilainen, Jani
    Suilamo, Sami
    Warner, Lizette
    Bzdusek, Karl
    Olsen, Christine
    Kooy, Hanne
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2020, 144 : 79 - 85