Cargando…

Dosimetric comparison between stereotactic body radiotherapy and carbon-ion radiation therapy for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer rates have been steadily increasing in recent years. As high-precision radiation therapy methods, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and carbon-ion radiation therapy (CIRT) have unique advantages. Analyzing the dosimetric differences between SBRT and CIRT in the t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, He-Fa, Gao, Xing-Xin, Li, Qiang, Ma, Xiao-Yun, Du, Lan-Ning, Sun, Peng-Fei, Li, Sha
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10585578/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37869307
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/qims-23-340
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer rates have been steadily increasing in recent years. As high-precision radiation therapy methods, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and carbon-ion radiation therapy (CIRT) have unique advantages. Analyzing the dosimetric differences between SBRT and CIRT in the treatment of localized prostate cancer can help provide patients with more accurate, individualized treatment plans. METHODS: We selected computed tomography positioning images and the contours of target volumes of 16 patients with localized prostate cancer who received radiotherapy. We delineated the organs at risk (OARs) on the CyberKnife (CK) treatment planning system (TPS) MultiPlan4.0, which were imported into the CIRT uniform scanning TPS HIMM-1 ci-Plan. Two treatment plans, SBRT and CIRT, were designed for the same patient, and we used SPSS 22.0 for the statistical analysis of data. RESULTS: Both SBRT and CIRT plans met the prescribed dose requirements. In terms of target volume exposure dose, D2 (P<0.001), D5 (P<0.001), D50 (P<0.001), D90 (P=0.029), D95 (P<0.001), D98 (P<0.001), and D(mean) (P<0.001) under SBRT were significantly higher than those under CIRT; the conformity index (CI) under SBRT was significantly better than that under CIRT (P<0.001); the target volume coverage rate (V95%) and dose homogeneity index (HI) under CIRT were significantly better than those under SBRT (P<0.001). In terms of OAR exposure dosage, the D(max) of the bladder and rectum under SBRT was significantly lower than that under CIRT (P<0.001), but D(mean) was in the other direction; the exposure dose of the intestinal tract under CIRT was significantly lower than that under SBRT (P<0.05); D(max) of the femoral head under CIRT was significantly lower than that under SBRT (P<0.05), and there was no statistical difference between them at other doses. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that when CIRT was used for treating localized prostate cancer, the dose distribution in target volume was more homogeneous and the coverage rate was higher; the average dose of OARs was lower. SBRT had a better CI and higher dose in target volume; the dose hotspot was lower in OARs. It is important to comprehensively consider the dose relationship between local tumor and surrounding tissues when selecting treatment plans.