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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Riou, Olivier, de la Mothe, Pauline Regnault, Azria, David, Aillères, Norbert, Dubois, Jean‐Bernard, Fenoglietto, Pascal
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