BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has shown its superiority to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer. Different optimization algorithms are available: algorithms which first optimize the fluence followed by a sequencing (IM), and algorithms which involve the machine parameters directly in the optimization process (DSS). The aim of this treatment-planning study is to compare both of them regarding dose distribution and treatment time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer were enrolled for the planning study. The planning target volume and the rectum volume, urinary bladder and femoral heads as organs at risk were delineated. Average doses, the target dose homogeneity H, D(5), D(95), monitor units per fraction, and the number of segments were evaluated. RESULTS: While there is only a small difference in the mean doses at rectum and bladder, there is a significant advantage for the target dose homogeneity in the DSS-optimized plans compared to the IM-optimized ones. Differences in the monitor units (nearly 10% less for DSS) and the number of segments are also statistically significant and reduce the treatment time. CONCLUSION: Particularly with regard to the tumor control probability, the better homogeneity of the DSS-optimized plans is more profitable. The shorter treatment time is an improvement regarding intrafractional organ motion. The DSS optimizer results in a higher target dose homogeneity and, simultaneously, in a lower number of monitor units. Therefore, it should be preferred for IMRT of prostate cancer.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has shown its superiority to three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer. Different optimization algorithms are available: algorithms which first optimize the fluence followed by a sequencing (IM), and algorithms which involve the machine parameters directly in the optimization process (DSS). The aim of this treatment-planning study is to compare both of them regarding dose distribution and treatment time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer were enrolled for the planning study. The planning target volume and the rectum volume, urinary bladder and femoral heads as organs at risk were delineated. Average doses, the target dose homogeneity H, D(5), D(95), monitor units per fraction, and the number of segments were evaluated. RESULTS: While there is only a small difference in the mean doses at rectum and bladder, there is a significant advantage for the target dose homogeneity in the DSS-optimized plans compared to the IM-optimized ones. Differences in the monitor units (nearly 10% less for DSS) and the number of segments are also statistically significant and reduce the treatment time. CONCLUSION: Particularly with regard to the tumor control probability, the better homogeneity of the DSS-optimized plans is more profitable. The shorter treatment time is an improvement regarding intrafractional organ motion. The DSS optimizer results in a higher target dose homogeneity and, simultaneously, in a lower number of monitor units. Therefore, it should be preferred for IMRT of prostate cancer.
Authors: Dietmar Georg; Bernhard Kroupa; Petra Georg; Peter Winkler; Joachim Bogner; Karin Dieckmann; Richard Pötter Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Liv Bolstad Hysing; Tone Nybø Skorpen; Markus Alber; Lise Bauge Fjellsbø; Svein Inge Helle; Ludvig Paul Muren Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-06-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Martin Pursch-Lee; Branka Asadpour; Bernd Gagel; Marc D Piroth; Jens Klotz; Sandra Nussen; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2008-12-24 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Oscar Matzinger; Philip Poortmans; Jean-Yves Giraud; Philippe Maingon; Tom Budiharto; Alfons C M van den Bergh; J Bernard Davis; Elena Musat; Fatma Ataman; Dominique P Huyskens; Akos Gulyban; Michel Bolla Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2008-11-27 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Elizabeth J Adams; David J Convery; Vivian P Cosgrove; Helen A McNair; John N Staffurth; Jaap Vaarkamp; Christopher M Nutting; Alan P Warrington; Steve Webb; Jan Balyckyi; David P Dearnaley Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Anja M Weidner; Emile N J Th van Lin; Dietmar J Dinter; Tom Rozema; Stefan O Schoenberg; Frederik Wenz; Jelle O Barentsz; Frank Lohr Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2011-02-21 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: P Hüttenrauch; M Witt; D Wolff; S Bosold; R Engenhart-Cabillic; J Sparenberg; H Vorwerk; K Zink Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 3.621