Optimized planning target volume margin in helical tomotherapy for prostate cancer: is there a preferred method?
Authors:
Yuan Jie Cao,
Suk Lee,
Kyung Hwan Chang,
Jang Bo Shim,
Kwang Hyeon Kim,
Min Sun Jang,
Won Sup Yoon,
Dae Sik Yang,
Young Je Park,
Chul Yong Kim
Abstract:
To compare the dosimetrical differences between plans generated by helical tomotherapy using 2D or 3D margining technique in in prostate cancer. Ten prostate cancer patients were included in this study. For 2D plans, planning target volume (PTV) was created by adding 5 mm (lateral/anterior-posterior) to clinical target volume (CTV). For 3D plans, 5 mm margin was added not only in lateral/anterior-…
▽ More
To compare the dosimetrical differences between plans generated by helical tomotherapy using 2D or 3D margining technique in in prostate cancer. Ten prostate cancer patients were included in this study. For 2D plans, planning target volume (PTV) was created by adding 5 mm (lateral/anterior-posterior) to clinical target volume (CTV). For 3D plans, 5 mm margin was added not only in lateral/anterior-posterior, but also in superior-inferior to CTV. Various dosimetrical indices, including the prescription isodose to target volume (PITV) ratio, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), target coverage index (TCI), modified dose homogeneity index (MHI), conformation number (CN), critical organ scoring index (COSI), and quality factor (QF) were determined to compare the different treatment plans. Differences between 2D and 3D PTV indices were not significant except for CI (p = 0.023). 3D margin plans (11195 MUs) resulted in higher (13.0%) monitor units than 2D margin plans (9728 MUs). There were no significant differences in any OARs between the 2D and 3D plans. Overall, the average 2D plan dose was slightly lower than the 3D plan dose. Compared to the 2D plan, the 3D plan increased average treatment time by 1.5 minutes; however, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.082). We confirmed that 2D and 3D margin plans are not significantly different with regard to various dosimetric indices such as PITV, CI, and HI for PTV, and OARs with tomotherapy.
△ Less
Submitted 12 April, 2015;
originally announced April 2015.
Treatment plan comparison of Linac step and shoot,Tomotherapy, RapidArc, and Proton therapy for prostate cancer using dosimetrical and biological index
Authors:
Suk Lee,
Yuan Jie Cao,
Kyung Hwan Chang,
Jang Bo Shim,
Kwang Hyeon Kim,
Nam Kwon Lee,
Young Je Park,
Chul Yong Kim,
Sam Ju Cho,
Sang Hoon Lee,
Chul Kee Min,
Woo Chul Kim,
Kwang Hwan Cho,
Hyun Do Huh,
Sangwook Lim,
Dongho Shin
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to use various dosimetrical indices to determine the best IMRT modality technique for treating patients with prostate cancer. Ten patients with prostate cancer were included in this study. Intensity modulated radiation therapy plans were designed to include different modalities, including the linac step and shoot, Tomotherapy, RapidArc, and Proton systems. Various dos…
▽ More
The purpose of this study was to use various dosimetrical indices to determine the best IMRT modality technique for treating patients with prostate cancer. Ten patients with prostate cancer were included in this study. Intensity modulated radiation therapy plans were designed to include different modalities, including the linac step and shoot, Tomotherapy, RapidArc, and Proton systems. Various dosimetrical indices, like the prescription isodose to target volume (PITV) ratio, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), target coverage index (TCI), modified dose homogeneity index (MHI), conformation number (CN), critical organ scoring index (COSI), and quality factor (QF) were determined to compare the different treatment plans. Biological indices such as the generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD), based tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were also calculated and used to compare the treatment plans. The RapidArc plan attained better PTV coverage, as evidenced by its superior PITV, CI, TCI, MHI, and CN values. Regarding OARs, proton therapy exhibited superior dose sparing for the rectum and bowel in low dose volumes, whereas the Tomotherapy and RapidArc plans achieved better dose sparing in high dose volumes. The QF scores showed no significant difference among these plans (p=0.701). The average TCPs for prostate tumors in the RapidArc, Linac, and Proton plans were higher than the average TCP for Tomotherapy (98.79%, 98.76%, and 98.75% vs. 98.70%, respectively). Regarding the rectum NTCP, RapidArc showed the most favorable result (0.09%), whereas Linac resulted in the best bladder NTCP (0.08%).
△ Less
Submitted 11 March, 2015;
originally announced March 2015.
