Helical tomotherapy and intensity modulated proton therapy in the treatment of early stage prostate cancer: A treatment planning comparison

被引:28
|
作者
Schwarz, Marco [1 ]
Pierelli, Alessio [2 ]
Fiorino, Claudio [2 ]
Fellin, Francesco [1 ]
Cattaneo, Giovanni Mauro [2 ]
Cozzarini, Cesare [2 ]
Di Muzio, Nadia [2 ]
Calandrino, Riccardo [2 ]
Widesott, Lamberto [1 ]
机构
[1] Agenzia Prov Protonterapia, I-38122 Trento, Italy
[2] Ist Sci San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
关键词
IMPT; Tomotherapy; Prostate; Planning comparison; DOSE-ESCALATION TRIAL; X-RAY THERAPY; CONFORMAL RADIOTHERAPY; IMAGE-GUIDANCE; VOLUME; IMRT; OPTIMIZATION; MULTICENTER; ISSUES; TUMORS;
D O I
10.1016/j.radonc.2010.10.027
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: To compare helical tomotherapy (HT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) on early stage prostate cancer treatments delivered with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in moderate hypofractionation. Material/methods: Eight patients treated with HT were replanned with two-field IMPT (2fIMPT) and five-field IMPT (5fIMPT), using a small pencil beam size (3 mm sigma). The prescribed dose was 74.3 Gy in 28 fractions on PTV1 (prostate) and PTV2 (proximal seminal vesicles), 65.5 Gy on PTV3 (distal seminal vesicles) and on the overlap between rectum and PTVs. Results: IMPT and HT achieved similar target coverage and dose homogeneity, with 5fIMPT providing the best results. The conformity indexes of IMPT were significantly lower for PTV1+2 and PTV3. Above 65 Gy, HT and IMPT were equivalent in the rectum, while IMPT spared the bladder and the penile bulb from 0 to 70 Gy. From 0 up to 60 Gy, IMPT dosimetric values were (much) lower for all OARs except the femur heads, where HT was better than 2fIMPT in the 25-35 Gy dose range. OARs mean doses were typically reduced by 30-50% by IMPT. NTCPs for the rectum were within 1% between the two techniques, except when the endpoint was stool frequency, where IMPT showed a small (though statistically significant) benefit. Conclusions: HT and IMPT produce similar dose distributions in the target volume. The current knowledge on dose-effect relations does not allow to quantify the clinical impact of the large sparing of IMPT at medium-to-low doses. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology 98 (2011) 74-80
引用
收藏
页码:74 / 80
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Design considerations for intensity modulated proton therapy treatment planning
    Kooy, H
    Oelfke, U
    Lomax, T
    Paganetti, H
    Newhauser, W
    Bortfeld, T
    Goitein, M
    USE OF COMPUTERS IN RADIATION THERAPY, 2000, : 71 - 72
  • [32] A computational implementation and comparison of several intensity modulated proton therapy treatment planning algorithms
    Li, Haisen S.
    Romeijn, H. Edwin
    Fox, Christopher
    Palta, Jatinder R.
    Dempsey, James F.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2008, 35 (03) : 1103 - 1112
  • [33] Comparison of radiation treatment delivery for pancreatic cancer: Linac intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus helical tomotherapy
    Taylor, Robert
    Opfermann, Krisha
    Jones, Brian D.
    Terwilliger, Lacy E.
    McDonald, Daniel G.
    Ashenafi, Michael S.
    Garrett-Meyer, Elizabeth
    Marshall, David T.
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING AND RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2012, 56 (03) : 332 - 337
  • [34] Treatment Efficiency of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy in Comparison With Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Prostate Cancer
    Hall, William A.
    Fox, Timothy H.
    Jiang, Xiaojun
    Prabhu, Roshan S.
    Rossi, Peter J.
    Godette, Karen
    Jani, Ashesh B.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2013, 10 (02) : 128 - 134
  • [35] Dosimetric Comparison of Uniform Scanning Proton Therapy, Helical Tomotherapy, and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy in the Treatment of Bilateral Orbital Lymphoma
    Crew, J. B.
    James, J. A.
    Thornton, A. F.
    Gautam, A.
    Sullivan, M.
    Tasson, A.
    Wolanski, M.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2010, 78 (03): : S806 - S807
  • [36] Rapidarc, Intensity Modulated Photon and Proton Techniques for Recurrent Prostate Cancer after Radiotherapy: A Treatment Planning Comparison Study
    Weber, D. C.
    Wang, H.
    Cozzi, L.
    Dipasquale, G.
    Khan, H. G.
    Ratib, O.
    Rouzaud, M.
    Vees, H.
    Zaidi, H.
    Miralbell, R.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2009, 75 (03): : S331 - S331
  • [37] Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy with the 5-field technique, helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for localized prostate cancer
    Kita, Nozomi
    Shibamoto, Yuta
    Takemoto, Shinya
    Manabe, Yoshihiko
    Yanagi, Takeshi
    Sugie, Chikao
    Tomita, Natsuo
    Iwata, Hiromitsu
    Murai, Taro
    Hashimoto, Shingo
    Ishikura, Satoshi
    JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH, 2022, 63 (04) : 666 - 674
  • [38] Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Using Static Ports of Tomotherapy: Comparison With the Helical Tomotherapy Mode
    Murai, T.
    Shibamoto, Y.
    Murata, R.
    Manabe, Y.
    Ayakawa, S.
    Sugie, C.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2012, 84 (03): : S854 - S854
  • [39] A treatment planning comparison of proton therapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer using the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP).
    Fischer-Valuck, Benjamin Walker
    Olsen, Lindsey
    Mazur, Thomas
    Altman, Michael
    Bottani, Beth
    Gay, Hiram Alberto
    Michalski, Jeff M.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2016, 34 (02)
  • [40] Results of a multicenter intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment planning comparison study for a sample prostate cancer case
    Frenzel, Thorsten
    Albers, Dirk
    Grohmann, Maximilian
    Kruell, Andreas
    STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE, 2019, 195 (10) : 913 - 922