PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer using photon beams from an accelerator operated without a flattening filter; and to determine potential benefits and drawbacks of using unflattened beams for this type of treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans were generated for 10 patients with early-stage prostate cancer. For each patient, four plans were generated: with and without the flattening filter, at 6 and 18 MV. The prescription dose was 75.6 Gy to 98% of the planning target volume. The number of beams, their orientations, and optimization constraints were the same for all plans. Plans were generated with Eclipse 8.0 (Varian Medical Systems). RESULTS: All the plans developed with unflattened beams were clinically acceptable. In terms of patient dose distributions, plans with unflattened beams were similar to the corresponding plans with flattened beams. Plans with unflattened beams required fewer monitor units (MUs) per plan: on average, by a factor of 2.0 at 6 MV and 2.6 at 18 MV, assuming that removal of the flattening filter was not followed by recalibration of MUs. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically acceptable intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans for prostate cancer can be developed with unflattened beams at both 6 and 18 MV. Dosimetrically, flattened and unflattened beams generated similar treatment plans. The plans with unflattened beams required substantially fewer MUs. The reduction in the number of MUs indicates corresponding reduction in beam-on time and in the amount of radiation outside the target.
PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer using photon beams from an accelerator operated without a flattening filter; and to determine potential benefits and drawbacks of using unflattened beams for this type of treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans were generated for 10 patients with early-stage prostate cancer. For each patient, four plans were generated: with and without the flattening filter, at 6 and 18 MV. The prescription dose was 75.6 Gy to 98% of the planning target volume. The number of beams, their orientations, and optimization constraints were the same for all plans. Plans were generated with Eclipse 8.0 (Varian Medical Systems). RESULTS: All the plans developed with unflattened beams were clinically acceptable. In terms of patient dose distributions, plans with unflattened beams were similar to the corresponding plans with flattened beams. Plans with unflattened beams required fewer monitor units (MUs) per plan: on average, by a factor of 2.0 at 6 MV and 2.6 at 18 MV, assuming that removal of the flattening filter was not followed by recalibration of MUs. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically acceptable intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans for prostate cancer can be developed with unflattened beams at both 6 and 18 MV. Dosimetrically, flattened and unflattened beams generated similar treatment plans. The plans with unflattened beams required substantially fewer MUs. The reduction in the number of MUs indicates corresponding reduction in beam-on time and in the amount of radiation outside the target.
Authors: S Subramaniam; S Thirumalaiswamy; C Srinivas; G A Gandhi; M Kathirvel; K K Kumar; S Mallik; M Babaiah; Y Pawar; A Clivio; A Fogliata; P Mancosu; G Nicolini; E Vanetti; L Cozzi Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-03-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Oleg N Vassiliev; Stephen F Kry; Joe Y Chang; Peter A Balter; Uwe Titt; Radhe Mohan Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2009-01-27 Impact factor: 2.102