PURPOSE: The focus of this work was to compare noncoplanar beam arrangements used for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) step-and-shoot delivery to several axial beam arrangements used in the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 5-field coronal crossfire beam arrangement was developed for IMRT with the objective of improving upon the rectal and bladder dose-volume histograms obtained using 5-, 7-, and 9-field axial beam arrangements. Additionally, a modified 7-field crossfire technique was developed yielding improved dose distributions. The average values of dose-volume histograms and the time for treatment delivery were evaluated for all plans for 10 randomly chosen patients. RESULTS: Both crossfire IMRT techniques exhibited a 15-25% decrease in dose to the hottest 10% and 20% of the rectum relative to all three axial IMRT techniques. The 5-field crossfire orientation yields slightly higher bladder doses when compared to the other techniques. In selected cases, the 7-field crossfire beam arrangement demonstrates decreased dose to the bladder when compared to all three axial techniques. A mean delivery time of 14 to 17.5 min is noted for the noncoplanar arrangements after positioning and localization. CONCLUSIONS: A technique is described that allows additional normal tissue sparing during dose escalation to the prostate during IMRT delivery. This technique takes advantage of the spatial orientation between the prostate, rectum, and bladder. With patient setup and target localization time aside, a mean treatment time of 14 to 17.5 min allows the delivery of the crossfire plans to conform to standard treatment times.
PURPOSE: The focus of this work was to compare noncoplanar beam arrangements used for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) step-and-shoot delivery to several axial beam arrangements used in the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 5-field coronal crossfire beam arrangement was developed for IMRT with the objective of improving upon the rectal and bladder dose-volume histograms obtained using 5-, 7-, and 9-field axial beam arrangements. Additionally, a modified 7-field crossfire technique was developed yielding improved dose distributions. The average values of dose-volume histograms and the time for treatment delivery were evaluated for all plans for 10 randomly chosen patients. RESULTS: Both crossfire IMRT techniques exhibited a 15-25% decrease in dose to the hottest 10% and 20% of the rectum relative to all three axial IMRT techniques. The 5-field crossfire orientation yields slightly higher bladder doses when compared to the other techniques. In selected cases, the 7-field crossfire beam arrangement demonstrates decreased dose to the bladder when compared to all three axial techniques. A mean delivery time of 14 to 17.5 min is noted for the noncoplanar arrangements after positioning and localization. CONCLUSIONS: A technique is described that allows additional normal tissue sparing during dose escalation to the prostate during IMRT delivery. This technique takes advantage of the spatial orientation between the prostate, rectum, and bladder. With patient setup and target localization time aside, a mean treatment time of 14 to 17.5 min allows the delivery of the crossfire plans to conform to standard treatment times.