Cargando…

A treatment planning study comparing tomotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, Sliding Window and proton therapy for low-risk prostate carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Comparing radiation treatment plans to ascertain the optimal intensity-modulated radiation technique for low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Treatment plans for 20 randomly selected patients were generated using the same dose objectives. A dosimetric comparison was performed between vario...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Scobioala, Sergiu, Kittel, Christopher, Wissmann, Nicolas, Haverkamp, Uwe, Channaoui, Mohammed, Habibeh, Omar, Elsayad, Khaled, Eich, Hans Theodor
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5037612/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27671348
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-016-0707-6
_version_ 1782455774260232192
author Scobioala, Sergiu
Kittel, Christopher
Wissmann, Nicolas
Haverkamp, Uwe
Channaoui, Mohammed
Habibeh, Omar
Elsayad, Khaled
Eich, Hans Theodor
author_facet Scobioala, Sergiu
Kittel, Christopher
Wissmann, Nicolas
Haverkamp, Uwe
Channaoui, Mohammed
Habibeh, Omar
Elsayad, Khaled
Eich, Hans Theodor
author_sort Scobioala, Sergiu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Comparing radiation treatment plans to ascertain the optimal intensity-modulated radiation technique for low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Treatment plans for 20 randomly selected patients were generated using the same dose objectives. A dosimetric comparison was performed between various intensity-modulated techniques, including protons. All treatment plans provided conventional treatment with 79.2Gy. Dosimetric indices for the target volume and organs at risk (OAR), including homogeneity index and four conformity indices were analyzed. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences between techniques were observed for homogeneity values. Dose distributions showed significant differences at low-to-medium doses. At doses above 50Gy all techniques revealed a steep dose gradient outside the planning target volume (PTV). Protons demonstrated superior rectum sparing at low-to-higher doses (V10-V70, P < .05) and bladder sparing at low-to-medium doses (V10–V30, P < .05). Helical tomotherapy (HT) provided superior rectum sparing compared to Sliding Window (SW) and Rapid Arc (RA) (V10–V70, P < .05). SW displayed superior bladder sparing compared to HT and RA (V10–V50, P < .05). Protons generated significantly higher femoral heads exposure and HT had superior sparing of those. CONCLUSION: All techniques are able to provide a homogeneous and highly conformal dose distribution. Protons demonstrated superior sparing of the rectum and bladder at a wide dose spectrum. The radiation technique itself as well as treatment planning algorithms result in different OAR sparing between HT, SW and RA, with superior rectum sparing by HT and superior bladder sparing by SW. Radiation plans can be further optimized by individual modification of dose objectives dependent on treatment plan strategy. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-016-0707-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5037612
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50376122016-10-05 A treatment planning study comparing tomotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, Sliding Window and proton therapy for low-risk prostate carcinoma Scobioala, Sergiu Kittel, Christopher Wissmann, Nicolas Haverkamp, Uwe Channaoui, Mohammed Habibeh, Omar Elsayad, Khaled Eich, Hans Theodor Radiat Oncol Research BACKGROUND: Comparing radiation treatment plans to ascertain the optimal intensity-modulated radiation technique for low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Treatment plans for 20 randomly selected patients were generated using the same dose objectives. A dosimetric comparison was performed between various intensity-modulated techniques, including protons. All treatment plans provided conventional treatment with 79.2Gy. Dosimetric indices for the target volume and organs at risk (OAR), including homogeneity index and four conformity indices were analyzed. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences between techniques were observed for homogeneity values. Dose distributions showed significant differences at low-to-medium doses. At doses above 50Gy all techniques revealed a steep dose gradient outside the planning target volume (PTV). Protons demonstrated superior rectum sparing at low-to-higher doses (V10-V70, P < .05) and bladder sparing at low-to-medium doses (V10–V30, P < .05). Helical tomotherapy (HT) provided superior rectum sparing compared to Sliding Window (SW) and Rapid Arc (RA) (V10–V70, P < .05). SW displayed superior bladder sparing compared to HT and RA (V10–V50, P < .05). Protons generated significantly higher femoral heads exposure and HT had superior sparing of those. CONCLUSION: All techniques are able to provide a homogeneous and highly conformal dose distribution. Protons demonstrated superior sparing of the rectum and bladder at a wide dose spectrum. The radiation technique itself as well as treatment planning algorithms result in different OAR sparing between HT, SW and RA, with superior rectum sparing by HT and superior bladder sparing by SW. Radiation plans can be further optimized by individual modification of dose objectives dependent on treatment plan strategy. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-016-0707-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-09-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5037612/ /pubmed/27671348 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-016-0707-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Scobioala, Sergiu
Kittel, Christopher
Wissmann, Nicolas
Haverkamp, Uwe
Channaoui, Mohammed
Habibeh, Omar
Elsayad, Khaled
Eich, Hans Theodor
A treatment planning study comparing tomotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, Sliding Window and proton therapy for low-risk prostate carcinoma
title A treatment planning study comparing tomotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, Sliding Window and proton therapy for low-risk prostate carcinoma
title_full A treatment planning study comparing tomotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, Sliding Window and proton therapy for low-risk prostate carcinoma
title_fullStr A treatment planning study comparing tomotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, Sliding Window and proton therapy for low-risk prostate carcinoma
title_full_unstemmed A treatment planning study comparing tomotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, Sliding Window and proton therapy for low-risk prostate carcinoma
title_short A treatment planning study comparing tomotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, Sliding Window and proton therapy for low-risk prostate carcinoma
title_sort treatment planning study comparing tomotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, sliding window and proton therapy for low-risk prostate carcinoma
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5037612/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27671348
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-016-0707-6
work_keys_str_mv AT scobioalasergiu atreatmentplanningstudycomparingtomotherapyvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyslidingwindowandprotontherapyforlowriskprostatecarcinoma
AT kittelchristopher atreatmentplanningstudycomparingtomotherapyvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyslidingwindowandprotontherapyforlowriskprostatecarcinoma
AT wissmannnicolas atreatmentplanningstudycomparingtomotherapyvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyslidingwindowandprotontherapyforlowriskprostatecarcinoma
AT haverkampuwe atreatmentplanningstudycomparingtomotherapyvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyslidingwindowandprotontherapyforlowriskprostatecarcinoma
AT channaouimohammed atreatmentplanningstudycomparingtomotherapyvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyslidingwindowandprotontherapyforlowriskprostatecarcinoma
AT habibehomar atreatmentplanningstudycomparingtomotherapyvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyslidingwindowandprotontherapyforlowriskprostatecarcinoma
AT elsayadkhaled atreatmentplanningstudycomparingtomotherapyvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyslidingwindowandprotontherapyforlowriskprostatecarcinoma
AT eichhanstheodor atreatmentplanningstudycomparingtomotherapyvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyslidingwindowandprotontherapyforlowriskprostatecarcinoma
AT scobioalasergiu treatmentplanningstudycomparingtomotherapyvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyslidingwindowandprotontherapyforlowriskprostatecarcinoma
AT kittelchristopher treatmentplanningstudycomparingtomotherapyvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyslidingwindowandprotontherapyforlowriskprostatecarcinoma
AT wissmannnicolas treatmentplanningstudycomparingtomotherapyvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyslidingwindowandprotontherapyforlowriskprostatecarcinoma
AT haverkampuwe treatmentplanningstudycomparingtomotherapyvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyslidingwindowandprotontherapyforlowriskprostatecarcinoma
AT channaouimohammed treatmentplanningstudycomparingtomotherapyvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyslidingwindowandprotontherapyforlowriskprostatecarcinoma
AT habibehomar treatmentplanningstudycomparingtomotherapyvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyslidingwindowandprotontherapyforlowriskprostatecarcinoma
AT elsayadkhaled treatmentplanningstudycomparingtomotherapyvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyslidingwindowandprotontherapyforlowriskprostatecarcinoma
AT eichhanstheodor treatmentplanningstudycomparingtomotherapyvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyslidingwindowandprotontherapyforlowriskprostatecarcinoma