BACKGROUND: Late rectal injury is a common side effect of external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate what total dose may be safely delivered for prostate patients for 3DCRT and IMRT techniques and the CTV-PTV margin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3DCRT and IMRT plans were prepared for 12 patients. For each patient PTV was defined with CTV-PTV margins of 0.4, 0.6, …, 1.0 cm, and total doses of 70, 72, …, 80 Gy, with 2 Gy dose fraction. NTCP values for the rectum were calculated using the Lyman model. Both techniques were compared in terms of population mean DVH. RESULTS: Significantly smaller NTCPs for IMRT were obtained. For both techniques diminishing the margin CTV-PTV of 2 mm leads to decreasing the NTCP of about 0.03. For total dose of 80 Gy the NTCP was smaller than 10% for the 4 mm margin only. The QUANTEC dose volume constraints were more frequently fulfilled for the IMRT technique than for the 3DCRT technique. CONCLUSIONS: The IMRT technique is safer for prostate patients than the 3DCRT. If very high total doses are applied the CTV-PTV margin of 0.4 cm and the IMRT technique should be used. If the CTV-PTV margin of 0.6 cm is applied, the NTCP is smaller than 10% for the 3DCRT and IMRT techniques for the total doses smaller than 74 Gy and 78 Gy, respectively.
BACKGROUND: Late rectal injury is a common side effect of external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate what total dose may be safely delivered for prostatepatients for 3DCRT and IMRT techniques and the CTV-PTV margin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3DCRT and IMRT plans were prepared for 12 patients. For each patient PTV was defined with CTV-PTV margins of 0.4, 0.6, …, 1.0 cm, and total doses of 70, 72, …, 80 Gy, with 2 Gy dose fraction. NTCP values for the rectum were calculated using the Lyman model. Both techniques were compared in terms of population mean DVH. RESULTS: Significantly smaller NTCPs for IMRT were obtained. For both techniques diminishing the margin CTV-PTV of 2 mm leads to decreasing the NTCP of about 0.03. For total dose of 80 Gy the NTCP was smaller than 10% for the 4 mm margin only. The QUANTEC dose volume constraints were more frequently fulfilled for the IMRT technique than for the 3DCRT technique. CONCLUSIONS: The IMRT technique is safer for prostatepatients than the 3DCRT. If very high total doses are applied the CTV-PTV margin of 0.4 cm and the IMRT technique should be used. If the CTV-PTV margin of 0.6 cm is applied, the NTCP is smaller than 10% for the 3DCRT and IMRT techniques for the total doses smaller than 74 Gy and 78 Gy, respectively.
Entities:
Keywords:
3DCRT and IMRT; CTV–PTV margin; Normal Tissue Complication Probability; Rectum injury
Authors: Robert Jan Smeenk; Bin S Teh; E Brian Butler; Emile N J Th van Lin; Johannes H A M Kaanders Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2010-05-05 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: M Pinkawa; M D Piroth; R Holy; N Escobar-Corral; M Caffaro; V Djukic; J Klotz; M J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-08-31 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Katja M Langen; Twyla R Willoughby; Sanford L Meeks; Anand Santhanam; Alexis Cunningham; Lisa Levine; Patrick A Kupelian Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-02-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Carlos Enrique Vargas; William Fred Hartsell; Megan Dunn; Sameer Ramchandra Keole; Lucius Doh; John Chang; Gary Lynn Larson Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2016-03-04