Cargando…

Cyberknife, Helical Tomotherapy and Rapid Arc SIB-SBRT Treatment Plan Comparison for Carcinoma Prostate

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to dosimetrically compare plan quality of Simultaneous Integrated Boost – Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SIB-SBRT) generated for different techniques such as Cyberknife (CK), Helical Tomotherapy (HT) and RapidArc (RA) for carcinoma prostate with same treatment m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: T K, Bijina, Ganesh, K M, A, Pichandi, C A, Muthuselvi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: West Asia Organization for Cancer Prevention 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7445956/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32334484
http://dx.doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2020.21.4.1149
_version_ 1783574086041993216
author T K, Bijina
Ganesh, K M
A, Pichandi
C A, Muthuselvi
author_facet T K, Bijina
Ganesh, K M
A, Pichandi
C A, Muthuselvi
author_sort T K, Bijina
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to dosimetrically compare plan quality of Simultaneous Integrated Boost – Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SIB-SBRT) generated for different techniques such as Cyberknife (CK), Helical Tomotherapy (HT) and RapidArc (RA) for carcinoma prostate with same treatment margins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SIB-SBRT plans were generated for CK, HT and RA for thirteen CT data sets. The dose prescription was 45Gy in 5 fractions to GTV45 and 37.5Gy in 5 fractions to PTV37.5. The plan quality evaluation of the three techniques was done by comparing the DVH parameters, conformity index (CI) and gradient index (GI). For OAR’s mean, maximum dose and dose volumes were compared for bladder, rectum and bilateral femoral heads. The number of Monitor Units (MU) delivered and Beam-on time (BOT) were also compared. RESULTS: D(2%), D(50%) and D(Mean) to GTV45 was significantly higher in the CK compared to HT and RA (CK vs HT: p values, <0.001, 0.002 and 0.003; CK vs RA: p values, 0.001, 0.004 and 0.004) respectively. RA gives a better gradient index compared to CK and HT. Conformity indices of the RA plans were better than the CK plans (P<0.001). Normal tissue and integral dose delivered to the patient in HT and CK were found to be significantly higher than RA. The average number of MU’s and BOT were significantly higher in CK (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Using the same treatment margins and dose constraints, RA achieved better target dose distribution and sparing of critical structures compared to CK and HT. RA seemed to be the optimal planning technique for SIB-SBRT treatment of carcinoma prostate.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7445956
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher West Asia Organization for Cancer Prevention
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74459562020-09-02 Cyberknife, Helical Tomotherapy and Rapid Arc SIB-SBRT Treatment Plan Comparison for Carcinoma Prostate T K, Bijina Ganesh, K M A, Pichandi C A, Muthuselvi Asian Pac J Cancer Prev Research Article BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to dosimetrically compare plan quality of Simultaneous Integrated Boost – Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SIB-SBRT) generated for different techniques such as Cyberknife (CK), Helical Tomotherapy (HT) and RapidArc (RA) for carcinoma prostate with same treatment margins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SIB-SBRT plans were generated for CK, HT and RA for thirteen CT data sets. The dose prescription was 45Gy in 5 fractions to GTV45 and 37.5Gy in 5 fractions to PTV37.5. The plan quality evaluation of the three techniques was done by comparing the DVH parameters, conformity index (CI) and gradient index (GI). For OAR’s mean, maximum dose and dose volumes were compared for bladder, rectum and bilateral femoral heads. The number of Monitor Units (MU) delivered and Beam-on time (BOT) were also compared. RESULTS: D(2%), D(50%) and D(Mean) to GTV45 was significantly higher in the CK compared to HT and RA (CK vs HT: p values, <0.001, 0.002 and 0.003; CK vs RA: p values, 0.001, 0.004 and 0.004) respectively. RA gives a better gradient index compared to CK and HT. Conformity indices of the RA plans were better than the CK plans (P<0.001). Normal tissue and integral dose delivered to the patient in HT and CK were found to be significantly higher than RA. The average number of MU’s and BOT were significantly higher in CK (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Using the same treatment margins and dose constraints, RA achieved better target dose distribution and sparing of critical structures compared to CK and HT. RA seemed to be the optimal planning technique for SIB-SBRT treatment of carcinoma prostate. West Asia Organization for Cancer Prevention 2020-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7445956/ /pubmed/32334484 http://dx.doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2020.21.4.1149 Text en This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
T K, Bijina
Ganesh, K M
A, Pichandi
C A, Muthuselvi
Cyberknife, Helical Tomotherapy and Rapid Arc SIB-SBRT Treatment Plan Comparison for Carcinoma Prostate
title Cyberknife, Helical Tomotherapy and Rapid Arc SIB-SBRT Treatment Plan Comparison for Carcinoma Prostate
title_full Cyberknife, Helical Tomotherapy and Rapid Arc SIB-SBRT Treatment Plan Comparison for Carcinoma Prostate
title_fullStr Cyberknife, Helical Tomotherapy and Rapid Arc SIB-SBRT Treatment Plan Comparison for Carcinoma Prostate
title_full_unstemmed Cyberknife, Helical Tomotherapy and Rapid Arc SIB-SBRT Treatment Plan Comparison for Carcinoma Prostate
title_short Cyberknife, Helical Tomotherapy and Rapid Arc SIB-SBRT Treatment Plan Comparison for Carcinoma Prostate
title_sort cyberknife, helical tomotherapy and rapid arc sib-sbrt treatment plan comparison for carcinoma prostate
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7445956/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32334484
http://dx.doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2020.21.4.1149
work_keys_str_mv AT tkbijina cyberknifehelicaltomotherapyandrapidarcsibsbrttreatmentplancomparisonforcarcinomaprostate
AT ganeshkm cyberknifehelicaltomotherapyandrapidarcsibsbrttreatmentplancomparisonforcarcinomaprostate
AT apichandi cyberknifehelicaltomotherapyandrapidarcsibsbrttreatmentplancomparisonforcarcinomaprostate
AT camuthuselvi cyberknifehelicaltomotherapyandrapidarcsibsbrttreatmentplancomparisonforcarcinomaprostate