James C L Chow1, Runqing Jiang2. 1. Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada ; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada. 2. Medical Physics Department, Grand River Regional Cancer Center, Kitchener, ON, N2G 1G3, Canada ; Department of Physics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Abstract
AIM: This study compared the dosimetric impact between prostate IMRT and VMAT due to patient's weight loss. BACKGROUND: Dosimetric variation due to change of patient's body contour is difficult to predict in prostate IMRT and VMAT, since a large number of small and irregular segmental fields is used in the delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five patients with prostate volumes ranging from 32.0 to 86.5 cm(3) and a heterogeneous pelvis phantom were used for prostate IMRT and VMAT plans using the same set of dose-volume constraints. Doses in IMRT and VMAT plans were recalculated with the patient's and phantom's body contour reduced by 0.5-2 cm to mimic size reduction. Dose coverage/criteria of the PTV and CTV and critical organs (rectum, bladder and femoral heads) were compared between IMRT and VMAT. RESULTS: In IMRT plans, increases of the D99% for the PTV and CTV were equal to 4.0 ± 0.1% per cm of reduced depth, which were higher than those in VMAT plans (2.7 ± 0.24% per cm). Moreover, increases of the D30% of the rectum and bladder per reduced depth in IMRT plans (4.0 ± 0.2% per cm and 3.5 ± 0.5% per cm) were higher than those of VMAT (2.2 ± 0.2% per cm and 2.0 ± 0.6% per cm). This was also true for the increase of the D5% for the right femoral head in a patient or phantom with size reduction due to weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: VMAT would be preferred to IMRT in prostate radiotherapy, when a patient has potential to suffer from weight loss during the treatment.
AIM: This study compared the dosimetric impact between prostate IMRT and VMAT due to patient's weight loss. BACKGROUND: Dosimetric variation due to change of patient's body contour is difficult to predict in prostate IMRT and VMAT, since a large number of small and irregular segmental fields is used in the delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five patients with prostate volumes ranging from 32.0 to 86.5 cm(3) and a heterogeneous pelvis phantom were used for prostate IMRT and VMAT plans using the same set of dose-volume constraints. Doses in IMRT and VMAT plans were recalculated with the patient's and phantom's body contour reduced by 0.5-2 cm to mimic size reduction. Dose coverage/criteria of the PTV and CTV and critical organs (rectum, bladder and femoral heads) were compared between IMRT and VMAT. RESULTS: In IMRT plans, increases of the D99% for the PTV and CTV were equal to 4.0 ± 0.1% per cm of reduced depth, which were higher than those in VMAT plans (2.7 ± 0.24% per cm). Moreover, increases of the D30% of the rectum and bladder per reduced depth in IMRT plans (4.0 ± 0.2% per cm and 3.5 ± 0.5% per cm) were higher than those of VMAT (2.2 ± 0.2% per cm and 2.0 ± 0.6% per cm). This was also true for the increase of the D5% for the right femoral head in a patient or phantom with size reduction due to weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: VMAT would be preferred to IMRT in prostate radiotherapy, when a patient has potential to suffer from weight loss during the treatment.
Authors: Carmen Rodriguez; Stephen J Freedland; Anusila Deka; Eric J Jacobs; Marjorie L McCullough; Alpa V Patel; Michael J Thun; Eugenia E Calle Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-12-19 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Nicholas Hardcastle; Wolfgang A Tomé; Kerwyn Foo; Andrew Miller; Martin Carolan; Peter Metcalfe Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2010-08-30 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: Hoon Sik Choi; Guang Sub Jo; Jong Pyo Chae; Sang Bong Lee; Chul Hang Kim; Bae Kwon Jeong; Hojin Jeong; Yun Hee Lee; In Bong Ha; Ki Mun Kang; Jin Ho Song Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 2.238