OBJECTIVE: This study compared the dosimetry of volumetric-arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with a dynamic multileaf collimator using the Monte Carlo algorithm in the treatment of prostate cancer with and without simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) at different energy levels. METHODS: The data of 15 biopsy-proven prostate cancer patients were evaluated. The prescribed dose was 78 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV78) including the prostate and seminal vesicles and 86 Gy (PTV86) in 39 fractions to the intraprostatic lesion, which was delineated by MRI or MR-spectroscopy. RESULTS: PTV dose homogeneity was better for IMRT than VMAT at all energy levels for both PTV78 and PTV86. Lower rectum doses (V30-V50) were significantly higher with SIB compared with PTV78 plans in both IMRT and VMAT plans at all energy levels. The bladder doses at high dose level (V60-V80) were significantly higher in IMRT plans with SIB at all energy levels compared with PTV78 plans, but no significant difference was observed in VMAT plans. VMAT plans resulted in a significant decrease in the mean monitor units (MUs) for 6, 10, and 15 MV energy levels both in plans with and those without SIB. CONCLUSION: Dose escalation to intraprostatic lesions with 86 Gy is safe without causing serious increase in organs at risk (OARs) doses. VMAT is advantageous in sparing OARs and requiring less MU than IMRT. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: VMAT with SIB to intraprostatic lesion is a feasible method in treating prostate cancer. Additionally, no dosimetric advantage of higher energy is observed.
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the dosimetry of volumetric-arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with a dynamic multileaf collimator using the Monte Carlo algorithm in the treatment of prostate cancer with and without simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) at different energy levels. METHODS: The data of 15 biopsy-proven prostate cancerpatients were evaluated. The prescribed dose was 78 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV78) including the prostate and seminal vesicles and 86 Gy (PTV86) in 39 fractions to the intraprostatic lesion, which was delineated by MRI or MR-spectroscopy. RESULTS: PTV dose homogeneity was better for IMRT than VMAT at all energy levels for both PTV78 and PTV86. Lower rectum doses (V30-V50) were significantly higher with SIB compared with PTV78 plans in both IMRT and VMAT plans at all energy levels. The bladder doses at high dose level (V60-V80) were significantly higher in IMRT plans with SIB at all energy levels compared with PTV78 plans, but no significant difference was observed in VMAT plans. VMAT plans resulted in a significant decrease in the mean monitor units (MUs) for 6, 10, and 15 MV energy levels both in plans with and those without SIB. CONCLUSION: Dose escalation to intraprostatic lesions with 86 Gy is safe without causing serious increase in organs at risk (OARs) doses. VMAT is advantageous in sparing OARs and requiring less MU than IMRT. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: VMAT with SIB to intraprostatic lesion is a feasible method in treating prostate cancer. Additionally, no dosimetric advantage of higher energy is observed.
Authors: M Cruz; K Tsuda; Y Narumi; Y Kuroiwa; T Nose; Y Kojima; A Okuyama; S Takahashi; K Aozasa; J O Barentsz; H Nakamura Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2001-12-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Gert De Meerleer; Geert Villeirs; Samuel Bral; Leen Paelinck; Werner De Gersem; Peter Dekuyper; Wilfried De Neve Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Anthony L Zietman; Michelle L DeSilvio; Jerry D Slater; Carl J Rossi; Daniel W Miller; Judith A Adams; William U Shipley Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-09-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: M Chen; H Hricak; C L Kalbhen; J Kurhanewicz; D B Vigneron; J M Weiss; P R Carroll Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1996-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Nam P Nguyen; Rick Davis; Satya R Bose; Suresh Dutta; Vincent Vinh-Hung; Alexander Chi; Juan Godinez; Anand Desai; William Woods; Gabor Altdorfer; Mark D'Andrea; Ulf Karlsson; Richard A Vo; Thomas Sroka Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Matthew T Studenski; Yanisley Valenciaga; Matthew C Abramowitz; Radka Stoyanova; Elizabeth Bossart; Nesrin Dogan; Alan Pollack Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-05-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Dalia Ahmad Khalil; Danny Jazmati; Dirk Geismar; Jörg Wulff; Christian Bäumer; Paul Heinz Kramer; Theresa Steinmeier; Stefanie Schulze Schleitthoff; Sandija Plaude; Martin Bischoff; Stephan Tschirdewahn; Boris Hadaschik; Beate Timmermann Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Maria A Schmidt; Rafal Panek; Ruth Colgan; Julie Hughes; Aslam Sohaib; Frank Saran; Julia Murray; Jason Bernard; Patrick Revell; Mathias Nittka; Martin O Leach; Vibeke N Hansen Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2016-05-21 Impact factor: 6.280