Cargando…

Prostate volumetric‐modulated arc therapy: dosimetry and radiobiological model variation between the single‐arc and double‐arc technique

This study investigates the dosimetry and radiobiological model variation when a second photon arc was added to prostate volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using the single‐arc technique. Dosimetry and radiobiological model comparison between the single‐arc and double‐arc prostate VMAT plans we...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chow, James C.L., Jiang, Runqing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5714414/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23652240
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i3.4053
_version_ 1783283583039832064
author Chow, James C.L.
Jiang, Runqing
author_facet Chow, James C.L.
Jiang, Runqing
author_sort Chow, James C.L.
collection PubMed
description This study investigates the dosimetry and radiobiological model variation when a second photon arc was added to prostate volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using the single‐arc technique. Dosimetry and radiobiological model comparison between the single‐arc and double‐arc prostate VMAT plans were performed on five patients with prostate volumes ranging from [Formula: see text]. The prescription dose was 78 Gy/39 fractions and the photon beam energy was 6 MV. Dose‐volume histogram, mean and maximum dose of targets (planning and clinical target volume) and normal tissues (rectum, bladder and femoral heads), dose‐volume criteria in the treatment plan ([Formula: see text] of PTV; [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] of rectum and bladder; [Formula: see text] of femoral heads), and dose profiles along the vertical and horizontal axis crossing the isocenter were determined using the single‐arc and double‐arc VMAT technique. For comparison, the monitor unit based on the RapidArc delivery method, prostate tumor control probability (TCP), and rectal normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) based on the Lyman‐Burman‐Kutcher algorithm were calculated. It was found that though the double‐arc technique required almost double the treatment time than the single‐arc, the double‐arc plan provided a better rectal and bladder dose‐volume criteria by shifting the delivered dose in the patient from the anterior–posterior direction to the lateral. As the femoral head was less radiosensitive than the rectum and bladder, the double‐arc technique resulted in a prostate VMAT plan with better prostate coverage and rectal dose‐volume criteria compared to the single‐arc. The prostate TCP of the double‐arc plan was found slightly increased (0.16%) compared to the single‐arc. Therefore, when the rectal dose‐volume criteria are very difficult to achieve in a single‐arc prostate VMAT plan, it is worthwhile to consider the double‐arc technique. PACS number: 87.55.D‐, 87.55.dk, 87.55.K‐, 87.55.Qr
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5714414
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57144142018-04-02 Prostate volumetric‐modulated arc therapy: dosimetry and radiobiological model variation between the single‐arc and double‐arc technique Chow, James C.L. Jiang, Runqing J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics This study investigates the dosimetry and radiobiological model variation when a second photon arc was added to prostate volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using the single‐arc technique. Dosimetry and radiobiological model comparison between the single‐arc and double‐arc prostate VMAT plans were performed on five patients with prostate volumes ranging from [Formula: see text]. The prescription dose was 78 Gy/39 fractions and the photon beam energy was 6 MV. Dose‐volume histogram, mean and maximum dose of targets (planning and clinical target volume) and normal tissues (rectum, bladder and femoral heads), dose‐volume criteria in the treatment plan ([Formula: see text] of PTV; [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] of rectum and bladder; [Formula: see text] of femoral heads), and dose profiles along the vertical and horizontal axis crossing the isocenter were determined using the single‐arc and double‐arc VMAT technique. For comparison, the monitor unit based on the RapidArc delivery method, prostate tumor control probability (TCP), and rectal normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) based on the Lyman‐Burman‐Kutcher algorithm were calculated. It was found that though the double‐arc technique required almost double the treatment time than the single‐arc, the double‐arc plan provided a better rectal and bladder dose‐volume criteria by shifting the delivered dose in the patient from the anterior–posterior direction to the lateral. As the femoral head was less radiosensitive than the rectum and bladder, the double‐arc technique resulted in a prostate VMAT plan with better prostate coverage and rectal dose‐volume criteria compared to the single‐arc. The prostate TCP of the double‐arc plan was found slightly increased (0.16%) compared to the single‐arc. Therefore, when the rectal dose‐volume criteria are very difficult to achieve in a single‐arc prostate VMAT plan, it is worthwhile to consider the double‐arc technique. PACS number: 87.55.D‐, 87.55.dk, 87.55.K‐, 87.55.Qr John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2013-05-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5714414/ /pubmed/23652240 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i3.4053 Text en © 2013 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Chow, James C.L.
Jiang, Runqing
Prostate volumetric‐modulated arc therapy: dosimetry and radiobiological model variation between the single‐arc and double‐arc technique
title Prostate volumetric‐modulated arc therapy: dosimetry and radiobiological model variation between the single‐arc and double‐arc technique
title_full Prostate volumetric‐modulated arc therapy: dosimetry and radiobiological model variation between the single‐arc and double‐arc technique
title_fullStr Prostate volumetric‐modulated arc therapy: dosimetry and radiobiological model variation between the single‐arc and double‐arc technique
title_full_unstemmed Prostate volumetric‐modulated arc therapy: dosimetry and radiobiological model variation between the single‐arc and double‐arc technique
title_short Prostate volumetric‐modulated arc therapy: dosimetry and radiobiological model variation between the single‐arc and double‐arc technique
title_sort prostate volumetric‐modulated arc therapy: dosimetry and radiobiological model variation between the single‐arc and double‐arc technique
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5714414/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23652240
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i3.4053
work_keys_str_mv AT chowjamescl prostatevolumetricmodulatedarctherapydosimetryandradiobiologicalmodelvariationbetweenthesinglearcanddoublearctechnique
AT jiangrunqing prostatevolumetricmodulatedarctherapydosimetryandradiobiologicalmodelvariationbetweenthesinglearcanddoublearctechnique