PURPOSE: To determine a class solution coplanar plan from comparisons of three-field (3F), four-field (4F), and six-field (6F) plans in conformal non-intensity-modulated prostate radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Doses to two clinical target volumes, prostate only (PO) and prostate plus seminal vesicles (PSV) were evaluated in each of 10 patients using a variety of 3F, 4F, and 6F plans with a planning target volume margin of 10 mm. All plans were prescribed to 64 and 74 Gy. The class solution plan for each of 3F, 4F, and 6F was chosen from a variety of symmetrical and asymmetrical field arrangements that had been previously assessed. The class solution plans, 3F (0, 90, 270 degrees ), 4F (35, 90, 270, 325 degrees ), and 6F (50/lat/25) were compared with reference plans: 3F (0, 120, 240 degrees ), 4F (0, 90, 180, 270 degrees ), and 6F (55, 90, 125, 235, 270, 305 degrees ). Rectal volumes irradiated to greater than 50% (V(50)), 80% (V(80)), and 90% (V(90)) of the prescribed dose, normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for rectum, bladder, and femoral heads (FH), and tumor control probabilities (TCP) were assessed. FH tolerance was set at 52 Gy to 10% volume. RESULTS: The field arrangement that gave the lowest irradiated rectal volume with acceptable bladder and FH doses was a 3F (0, 90, 270 degrees ) class solution plan. This plan gave a reduction in rectal V(80) of 1.2-12.4% for the PO group and 2.3-23.8% for the PSV group compared with the other plans. The reduction in rectal V(90) was 0.2-11.9% for the PO group and 1.5-23.3% for the PSV group using the 3F (0, 90, 270 degrees ) plan. This plan provided one of the lowest rectal NTCPs, but the difference was not significant when compared with the 4F class solution plan. When target volumes with 10-mm margins remain unchanged to 74 Gy, the irradiated rectal volumes for all plans were higher and rectal NTCPs can be trebled. CONCLUSION: The use of appropriate beam arrangements can provide a class solution plan using only 3 fields compared with 4 or 6 fields for the parameters considered. Both 3F (0, 90, 270 degrees ) and 4F (35, 90, 270, 325 degrees ) plans can be used as a class solution plan. Other practical issues that may influence the choice of class solution include delivery time with smaller number of fields, ease of verification, the use of 10-mm multileaf collimation vs. conformal blocks, and field shape fitting limitations when using dynamic wedges.
PURPOSE: To determine a class solution coplanar plan from comparisons of three-field (3F), four-field (4F), and six-field (6F) plans in conformal non-intensity-modulated prostate radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Doses to two clinical target volumes, prostate only (PO) and prostate plus seminal vesicles (PSV) were evaluated in each of 10 patients using a variety of 3F, 4F, and 6F plans with a planning target volume margin of 10 mm. All plans were prescribed to 64 and 74 Gy. The class solution plan for each of 3F, 4F, and 6F was chosen from a variety of symmetrical and asymmetrical field arrangements that had been previously assessed. The class solution plans, 3F (0, 90, 270 degrees ), 4F (35, 90, 270, 325 degrees ), and 6F (50/lat/25) were compared with reference plans: 3F (0, 120, 240 degrees ), 4F (0, 90, 180, 270 degrees ), and 6F (55, 90, 125, 235, 270, 305 degrees ). Rectal volumes irradiated to greater than 50% (V(50)), 80% (V(80)), and 90% (V(90)) of the prescribed dose, normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for rectum, bladder, and femoral heads (FH), and tumor control probabilities (TCP) were assessed. FH tolerance was set at 52 Gy to 10% volume. RESULTS: The field arrangement that gave the lowest irradiated rectal volume with acceptable bladder and FH doses was a 3F (0, 90, 270 degrees ) class solution plan. This plan gave a reduction in rectal V(80) of 1.2-12.4% for the PO group and 2.3-23.8% for the PSV group compared with the other plans. The reduction in rectal V(90) was 0.2-11.9% for the PO group and 1.5-23.3% for the PSV group using the 3F (0, 90, 270 degrees ) plan. This plan provided one of the lowest rectal NTCPs, but the difference was not significant when compared with the 4F class solution plan. When target volumes with 10-mm margins remain unchanged to 74 Gy, the irradiated rectal volumes for all plans were higher and rectal NTCPs can be trebled. CONCLUSION: The use of appropriate beam arrangements can provide a class solution plan using only 3 fields compared with 4 or 6 fields for the parameters considered. Both 3F (0, 90, 270 degrees ) and 4F (35, 90, 270, 325 degrees ) plans can be used as a class solution plan. Other practical issues that may influence the choice of class solution include delivery time with smaller number of fields, ease of verification, the use of 10-mm multileaf collimation vs. conformal blocks, and field shape fitting limitations when using dynamic wedges.
Authors: O F Naismith; C Griffin; I Syndikus; C South; H Mayles; P Mayles; V Khoo; C Scrase; J Graham; S Hassan; E Hall; D P Dearnaley Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 4.126