Literature DB >> 15922172

IMRT versus conventional 3DCRT on prostate and normal tissue dosimetry using an endorectal balloon for prostate immobilization.

Maria T Vlachaki1, Terrance N Teslow, Chad Amosson, Nathan W Uy, Salahuddin Ahmad.   

Abstract

This study was undertaken to compare prostate and normal tissue dosimetry in prostate cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and conventional 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) using an endorectal balloon for prostate immobilization. Ten prostate cancer patients were studied using both IMRT and conventional 3DCRT at Houston Veterans Affairs Medical Center. For IMRT, the prescription was 70 Gy at 2 Gy/fraction at the 83.4% isodose line, allowing no more than 15% of the rectum and 33% of the bladder to receive above 68 and 65 Gy, respectively. For conventional 3DCRT, a 6-field arrangement with lateral and oblique fields was used to deliver 76 Gy at 2Gy/fraction, ensuring complete tumor coverage by the 72-Gy isodose line. Mean doses for prostate and seminal vesicles were 75.10 and 75.11 Gy, respectively, for IMRT and 75.40 and 75.02 Gy, respectively, for 3DCRT (p > 0.218). 3DCRT delivered significantly higher doses to 33%, 50%, and 66% volumes of rectum by 3.55, 6.64, and 10.18 Gy, respectively (p < 0.002), and upper rectum by 7.26, 9.86, and 9.16 Gy, respectively (p < 0.007). 3DCRT also delivered higher doses to femur volumes of 33% and 50% by 9.38 and 10.19 Gy, respectively, (p < 0.001). Insignificant differences in tumor control probability (TCP) values between IMRT and 3DCRT were calculated for prostate (p = 0.320) and seminal vesicles (p = 0.289). Compared to 3DCRT, IMRT resulted in significantly reduced normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) only for upper rectum (p = 0.025) and femurs (p = 0.021). This study demonstrates that IMRT achieves superior normal tissue avoidance, especially for rectum and femurs compared to 3DCRT, with comparable target dose escalation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15922172     DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2005.01.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Dosim        ISSN: 1873-4022            Impact factor:   1.482


  9 in total

1.  Dosimetric and physical comparison of IMRT and CyberKnife plans in the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Cemile Ceylan; Nadir Kucuk; Hande Bas Ayata; Metin Guden; Kayihan Engin
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2010-11-12

2.  Dosimetric comparison between IMRT delivery modes: Step-and-shoot, sliding window, and volumetric modulated arc therapy - for whole pelvis radiation therapy of intermediate-to-high risk prostate adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Tania De La Fuente Herman; Erich Schnell; Julie Young; Kim Hildebrand; Ozer Algan; Elizabeth Syzek; Terence Herman; Salahuddin Ahmad
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2013-10

3.  Improved outcomes with intensity modulated radiation therapy combined with temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme.

Authors:  Noel J Aherne; Linus C Benjamin; Patrick J Horsley; Thomaz Silva; Shea Wilcox; Julan Amalaseelan; Patrick Dwyer; Abdul M R Tahir; Jacques Hill; Andrew Last; Carmen Hansen; Craig S McLachlan; Yvonne L Lee; Michael J McKay; Thomas P Shakespeare
Journal:  Neurol Res Int       Date:  2014-01-19

4.  Prostate volumetric-modulated arc therapy: dosimetry and radiobiological model variation between the single-arc and double-arc technique.

Authors:  James C L Chow; Runqing Jiang
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2013-05-06       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  A dosimetric comparison of the use of equally spaced beam (ESB), beam angle optimization (BAO), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in head and neck cancers treated by intensity modulated radiotherapy.

Authors:  Wan Shun Leung; Vincent W C Wu; Clarie Y W Liu; Ashley C K Cheng
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2019-10-08       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  An Automated Treatment Plan Quality Control Tool for Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Using a Voxel-Weighting Factor-Based Re-Optimization Algorithm.

Authors:  Ting Song; Nan Li; Masoud Zarepisheh; Yongbao Li; Quentin Gautier; Linghong Zhou; Loren Mell; Steve Jiang; Laura Cerviño
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Intensity modulated radiation therapy versus three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy for the treatment of high grade glioma: a dosimetric comparison.

Authors:  Shannon M MacDonald; Salahuddin Ahmad; Stefanos Kachris; Betty J Vogds; Melissa DeRouen; Alicia E Gittleman; Keith DeWyngaert; Maria T Vlachaki
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2007-04-19       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Comparison on efficacy of radical prostatectomy versus external beam radiotherapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Linyan Chen; Qingfang Li; Yexiao Wang; Yiwen Zhang; Xuelei Ma
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-08-09

9.  Dosimetric and radiobiological characterizations of prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy: A single-institution review of ninety cases.

Authors:  Muhammad Isa Khan; Runqing Jiang; Alexander Kiciak; Jalil Ur Rehman; Muhammad Afzal; James C L Chow
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2016 Jul-Sep
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.