BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine the effect of organ motion and set-up uncertainties on IMRT dose distributions for prostate. METHODS: For five patients, IMRT techniques were designed to irradiate the CTV (prostate plus seminal vesicles). Technique I delivered 78 Gy to PTV1 (CTV+10 mm margin). Technique II delivered 68 Gy to PTV1, and a 10 Gy boost to PTV2 (CTV+an anisotropic margin of 0 to 5 mm). Technique III delivered 68 Gy to PTV1 and simultaneously 78 Gy to PTV2. Uncertainties were simulated using population statistics of organ motion and set-up accuracy. The average TCP (TCPpop) of the CTV and average NTCP (NTCPpop) of the rectal wall were calculated. RESULTS: The planning TCP was a good predictor for TCPpop for Techniques I and II. Technique III was sensitive for geometrical uncertainties, reducing TCPpop by 0.8 to 2.4% compared to planning. NTCPpop was reduced for Technique III by a factor 2.6 compared to Technique I. For all plans, the planning NTCP was strongly correlated with NTCPpop. CONCLUSIONS: Dose distributions created with Techniques I and II are insensitive for geometrical uncertainties, while Technique III resulted in a reduction of TCPpop. This reduction can be compensated by a small dose escalation, while still resulting in an NTCPpop of the rectal wall that is lower or comparable to Technique I.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine the effect of organ motion and set-up uncertainties on IMRT dose distributions for prostate. METHODS: For five patients, IMRT techniques were designed to irradiate the CTV (prostate plus seminal vesicles). Technique I delivered 78 Gy to PTV1 (CTV+10 mm margin). Technique II delivered 68 Gy to PTV1, and a 10 Gy boost to PTV2 (CTV+an anisotropic margin of 0 to 5 mm). Technique III delivered 68 Gy to PTV1 and simultaneously 78 Gy to PTV2. Uncertainties were simulated using population statistics of organ motion and set-up accuracy. The average TCP (TCPpop) of the CTV and average NTCP (NTCPpop) of the rectal wall were calculated. RESULTS: The planning TCP was a good predictor for TCPpop for Techniques I and II. Technique III was sensitive for geometrical uncertainties, reducing TCPpop by 0.8 to 2.4% compared to planning. NTCPpop was reduced for Technique III by a factor 2.6 compared to Technique I. For all plans, the planning NTCP was strongly correlated with NTCPpop. CONCLUSIONS: Dose distributions created with Techniques I and II are insensitive for geometrical uncertainties, while Technique III resulted in a reduction of TCPpop. This reduction can be compensated by a small dose escalation, while still resulting in an NTCPpop of the rectal wall that is lower or comparable to Technique I.
Authors: David A Jaffray; Patricia E Lindsay; Kristy K Brock; Joseph O Deasy; W A Tomé Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alexei Trofimov; Paul L Nguyen; John J Coen; Karen P Doppke; Robert J Schneider; Judith A Adams; Thomas R Bortfeld; Anthony L Zietman; Thomas F Delaney; William U Shipley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-05-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Adam D Yock; Radhe Mohan; Stella Flampouri; Walter Bosch; Paige A Taylor; David Gladstone; Siyong Kim; Jason Sohn; Robert Wallace; Ying Xiao; Jeff Buchsbaum Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-12-15
Authors: Clifton D Fuller; Todd J Scarbrough; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Coen R N Rasch; Mehee Choi; Joe Y Ting; Samuel J Wang; Niko Papanikolaou; David I Rosenthal Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: J Koeck; Y Abo-Madyan; H T Eich; F Stieler; J Fleckenstein; J Kriz; R-P Mueller; F Wenz; F Lohr Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 3.621