Cargando…
Simultaneous integrated boost plan comparison of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy and sliding window intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for whole pelvis irradiation of locally advanced prostate cancer
Concurrent radiotherapy to the pelvis plus a prostate boost with long‐term androgen deprivation is a standard of care for locally advanced prostate cancer. IMRT has the ability to deliver highly conformal dose to the target while lowering irradiation of critical organs around the prostate. Volumetri...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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/PMC5714536/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23835376 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i4.4094 |
_version_ | 1783283601116233728 |
---|---|
author | Riou, Olivier de la Mothe, Pauline Regnault Azria, David Aillères, Norbert Dubois, Jean‐Bernard Fenoglietto, Pascal |
author_facet | Riou, Olivier de la Mothe, Pauline Regnault Azria, David Aillères, Norbert Dubois, Jean‐Bernard Fenoglietto, Pascal |
author_sort | Riou, Olivier |
collection | PubMed |
description | Concurrent radiotherapy to the pelvis plus a prostate boost with long‐term androgen deprivation is a standard of care for locally advanced prostate cancer. IMRT has the ability to deliver highly conformal dose to the target while lowering irradiation of critical organs around the prostate. Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy is able to reduce treatment time, but its impact on organ sparing is still controversial when compared to static gantry IMRT. We compared the two techniques in simultaneous integrated boost plans. Ten patients with locally advanced prostate cancer were included. The planning target volume (PTV) 1 was defined as the pelvic lymph nodes, the prostate, and the seminal vesicles plus setup margins. The PTV2 consisted of the prostate with setup margins. The prescribed doses to PTV1 and PTV2 were 54 Gy in 37 fractions and 74 Gy in 37 fractions, respectively. We compared simultaneous integrated boost plans by means of either a seven coplanar static split fields IMRT, or a one‐arc (RA1) and a two‐arc (RA2) RapidArc planning. All three techniques allowed acceptable homogeneity and PTV coverage. Static IMRT enabled a better homogeneity for PTV2 than RapidArc techniques. Sliding window IMRT and VMAT permitted to maintain doses to OAR within acceptable levels with a low risk of side effects for each organ. VMAT plans resulted in a clinically and statistically significant reduction in doses to bladder (mean dose IMRT: [Formula: see text] vs. mean dose RA2: [Formula: see text]), rectum (mean dose IMRT: [Formula: see text] vs. mean dose [Formula: see text]), and small bowel ([Formula: see text] vs. [Formula: see text]). Doses to femoral heads were higher with VMAT but within accepted constraints. Our findings suggest that simultaneous integrated boost plans using VMAT and sliding window IMRT allow good OAR sparing while maintaining PTV coverage within acceptable levels. PACS number: 87.53.Jw |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5714536 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57145362018-04-02 Simultaneous integrated boost plan comparison of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy and sliding window intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for whole pelvis irradiation of locally advanced prostate cancer Riou, Olivier de la Mothe, Pauline Regnault Azria, David Aillères, Norbert Dubois, Jean‐Bernard Fenoglietto, Pascal J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics Concurrent radiotherapy to the pelvis plus a prostate boost with long‐term androgen deprivation is a standard of care for locally advanced prostate cancer. IMRT has the ability to deliver highly conformal dose to the target while lowering irradiation of critical organs around the prostate. Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy is able to reduce treatment time, but its impact on organ sparing is still controversial when compared to static gantry IMRT. We compared the two techniques in simultaneous integrated boost plans. Ten patients with locally advanced prostate cancer were included. The planning target volume (PTV) 1 was defined as the pelvic lymph nodes, the prostate, and the seminal vesicles plus setup margins. The PTV2 consisted of the prostate with setup margins. The prescribed doses to PTV1 and PTV2 were 54 Gy in 37 fractions and 74 Gy in 37 fractions, respectively. We compared simultaneous integrated boost plans by means of either a seven coplanar static split fields IMRT, or a one‐arc (RA1) and a two‐arc (RA2) RapidArc planning. All three techniques allowed acceptable homogeneity and PTV coverage. Static IMRT enabled a better homogeneity for PTV2 than RapidArc techniques. Sliding window IMRT and VMAT permitted to maintain doses to OAR within acceptable levels with a low risk of side effects for each organ. VMAT plans resulted in a clinically and statistically significant reduction in doses to bladder (mean dose IMRT: [Formula: see text] vs. mean dose RA2: [Formula: see text]), rectum (mean dose IMRT: [Formula: see text] vs. mean dose [Formula: see text]), and small bowel ([Formula: see text] vs. [Formula: see text]). Doses to femoral heads were higher with VMAT but within accepted constraints. Our findings suggest that simultaneous integrated boost plans using VMAT and sliding window IMRT allow good OAR sparing while maintaining PTV coverage within acceptable levels. PACS number: 87.53.Jw John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2013-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5714536/ /pubmed/23835376 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i4.4094 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 Riou, Olivier de la Mothe, Pauline Regnault Azria, David Aillères, Norbert Dubois, Jean‐Bernard Fenoglietto, Pascal Simultaneous integrated boost plan comparison of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy and sliding window intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for whole pelvis irradiation of locally advanced prostate cancer |
title | Simultaneous integrated boost plan comparison of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy and sliding window intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for whole pelvis irradiation of locally advanced prostate cancer |
title_full | Simultaneous integrated boost plan comparison of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy and sliding window intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for whole pelvis irradiation of locally advanced prostate cancer |
title_fullStr | Simultaneous integrated boost plan comparison of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy and sliding window intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for whole pelvis irradiation of locally advanced prostate cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | Simultaneous integrated boost plan comparison of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy and sliding window intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for whole pelvis irradiation of locally advanced prostate cancer |
title_short | Simultaneous integrated boost plan comparison of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy and sliding window intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for whole pelvis irradiation of locally advanced prostate cancer |
title_sort | simultaneous integrated boost plan comparison of volumetric‐modulated arc therapy and sliding window intensity‐modulated radiotherapy for whole pelvis irradiation of locally advanced prostate cancer |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5714536/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23835376 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i4.4094 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT riouolivier simultaneousintegratedboostplancomparisonofvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforwholepelvisirradiationoflocallyadvancedprostatecancer AT delamothepaulineregnault simultaneousintegratedboostplancomparisonofvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforwholepelvisirradiationoflocallyadvancedprostatecancer AT azriadavid simultaneousintegratedboostplancomparisonofvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforwholepelvisirradiationoflocallyadvancedprostatecancer AT ailleresnorbert simultaneousintegratedboostplancomparisonofvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforwholepelvisirradiationoflocallyadvancedprostatecancer AT duboisjeanbernard simultaneousintegratedboostplancomparisonofvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforwholepelvisirradiationoflocallyadvancedprostatecancer AT fenogliettopascal simultaneousintegratedboostplancomparisonofvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyandslidingwindowintensitymodulatedradiotherapyforwholepelvisirradiationoflocallyadvancedprostatecancer |