Literature DB >> 21427488

Temporal characterization and in vitro comparison of cell survival following the delivery of 3D-conformal, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

Conor K McGarry1, Karl T Butterworth, Colman Trainor, Joe M O'Sullivan, Kevin M Prise, Alan R Hounsell.   

Abstract

A phantom was designed and implemented for the delivery of treatment plans to cells in vitro. Single beam, 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) plans, inverse planned five-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), nine-field IMRT, single-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and dual-arc VMAT plans were created on a CT scan of the phantom to deliver 3 Gy to the cell layer and verified using a Farmer chamber, 2D ionization chamber array and gafchromic film. Each plan was delivered to a 2D ionization chamber array to assess the temporal characteristics of the plan including delivery time and 'cell's eye view' for the central ionization chamber. The effective fraction time, defined as the percentage of the fraction time where any dose is delivered to each point examined, was also assessed across 120 ionization chambers. Each plan was delivered to human prostate cancer DU-145 cells and normal primary AGO-1522b fibroblast cells. Uniform beams were delivered to each cell line with the delivery time varying from 0.5 to 20.54 min. Effective fraction time was found to increase with a decreasing number of beams or arcs. For a uniform beam delivery, AGO-1552b cells exhibited a statistically significant trend towards increased survival with increased delivery time. This trend was not repeated when the different modulated clinical delivery methods were used. Less sensitive DU-145 cells did not exhibit a significant trend towards increased survival with increased delivery time for either the uniform or clinical deliveries. These results confirm that dose rate effects are most prevalent in more radiosensitive cells. Cell survival data generated from uniform beam deliveries over a range of dose rates and delivery times may not always be accurate in predicting response to more complex delivery techniques, such as IMRT and VMAT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21427488     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/8/008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  9 in total

1.  Investigation into the radiobiological consequences of pre-treatment verification imaging with megavoltage X-rays in radiotherapy.

Authors:  W B Hyland; S J McMahon; K T Butterworth; A J Cole; R B King; K M Redmond; K M Prise; A R Hounsell; C K McGarry
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-02-03       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Does CyberKnife improve dose distribution versus IMRT and VMAT on a linear accelerator in low-risk prostate cancer?

Authors:  Dorota Maria Borowicz; Agnieszka Skrobała; Marta Kruszyna-Mochalska; Julian Malicki
Journal:  Radiol Oncol       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 4.214

3.  A Model for Estimating Dose-Rate Effects on Cell-Killing of Human Melanoma after Boron Neutron Capture Therapy.

Authors:  Yusuke Matsuya; Hisanori Fukunaga; Motoko Omura; Hiroyuki Date
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2020-04-30       Impact factor: 6.600

4.  Intensity Modulated Radiation Fields Induce Protective Effects and Reduce Importance of Dose-Rate Effects.

Authors:  Yusuke Matsuya; Stephen J McMahon; Mihaela Ghita; Yuji Yoshii; Tatsuhiko Sato; Hiroyuki Date; Kevin M Prise
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Comparison and Evaluation of Different Radiotherapy Techniques Using Biodosimetry Based on Cytogenetics.

Authors:  Aggeliki Nikolakopoulou; Vasiliki Peppa; Antigoni Alexiou; George Pissakas; Georgia Terzoudi; Pantelis Karaiskos
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-29       Impact factor: 6.639

6.  Delivery parameter variations and early clinical outcomes of volumetric modulated arc therapy for 31 prostate cancer patients: an intercomparison of three treatment planning systems.

Authors:  Shinichi Tsutsumi; Masako N Hosono; Daisaku Tatsumi; Yoshitaka Miki; Yutaka Masuoka; Ryo Ogino; Kentaro Ishii; Yasuhiko Shimatani; Yukio Miki
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2013-01-15

7.  Use dose bricks concept to implement nasopharyngeal carcinoma treatment planning.

Authors:  Jia-Ming Wu; Tsan-Jung Yu; Shyh-An Yeh; Pei-Ju Chao; Chih-Jou Huang; Tsair-Fwu Lee
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  In Vitro Comparison of Passive and Active Clinical Proton Beams.

Authors:  Anna Michaelidesová; Jana Vachelová; Jana Klementová; Tomáš Urban; Kateřina Pachnerová Brabcová; Stanislav Kaczor; Martin Falk; Iva Falková; Daniel Depeš; Vladimír Vondráček; Marie Davídková
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-08-06       Impact factor: 5.923

9.  Tumor radioresistance caused by radiation-induced changes of stem-like cell content and sub-lethal damage repair capability.

Authors:  Roman Fukui; Ryo Saga; Yusuke Matsuya; Kazuo Tomita; Yoshikazu Kuwahara; Kentaro Ohuchi; Tomoaki Sato; Kazuhiko Okumura; Hiroyuki Date; Manabu Fukumoto; Yoichiro Hosokawa
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 4.379

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.