Cem Onal1, Gungor Arslan, Cem Parlak, Serhat Sonmez. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Adana Research and Treatment Centre, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Adana, 01120, Turkey, hcemonal@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To make dosimetric comparisons of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and 7-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with dynamic MLCs using the Monaco treatment planning system with Monte Carlo algorithm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single-arc VMAT and 7-field IMRT treatment plans were compared for 12 intermediate risk prostate cancer patients treated with prostate and seminal vesicle radiotherapy. For all patients, the prescribed dose was 78 Gy delivered in 39 fractions. The dosimetric data of IMRT and VMAT plans with 6, 10 and 15 MV energies were compared. The comparison was made for target volume, organs at risk (OAR) doses, and for monitor units (MU). RESULTS: The normal tissue surrounding the target were lower in VMAT plans compared to IMRT plans. VMAT plans achieved lower doses to all OARs for nearly all dosimetric endpoints. VMAT plans achieved 9.4, 9.0 and 7.0 % relative decrease in MUs required for RT delivery, for 6, 10 and 15 MV energy levels, respectively. The target volume and OAR dosimetric values did not differ significantly between 6, 10 and 15 MV photon energies. CONCLUSION: VMAT plans were found to be dosimetrically equivalent to IMRT plans for prostate cancer patients, with better rectum and bladder sparing and fewer MUs required.
PURPOSE: To make dosimetric comparisons of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and 7-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with dynamic MLCs using the Monaco treatment planning system with Monte Carlo algorithm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single-arc VMAT and 7-field IMRT treatment plans were compared for 12 intermediate risk prostate cancerpatients treated with prostate and seminal vesicle radiotherapy. For all patients, the prescribed dose was 78 Gy delivered in 39 fractions. The dosimetric data of IMRT and VMAT plans with 6, 10 and 15 MV energies were compared. The comparison was made for target volume, organs at risk (OAR) doses, and for monitor units (MU). RESULTS: The normal tissue surrounding the target were lower in VMAT plans compared to IMRT plans. VMAT plans achieved lower doses to all OARs for nearly all dosimetric endpoints. VMAT plans achieved 9.4, 9.0 and 7.0 % relative decrease in MUs required for RT delivery, for 6, 10 and 15 MV energy levels, respectively. The target volume and OAR dosimetric values did not differ significantly between 6, 10 and 15 MV photon energies. CONCLUSION: VMAT plans were found to be dosimetrically equivalent to IMRT plans for prostate cancerpatients, with better rectum and bladder sparing and fewer MUs required.
Authors: Stephanie T H Peeters; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Peter C M Koper; Wim L J van Putten; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Johannes M G Bonfrer; Luca Incrocci; Joos V Lebesque Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
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