Cargando…
Dosimetric comparison of MR-guided adaptive IMRT versus 3DOF-VMAT for prostate stereotactic radiotherapy
INTRODUCTION: To compare the dosimetry of prostate stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) delivered by adaptive intensity modulated radiotherapy (A-IMRT) and 3 degree of freedom volumetric modulated arc therapy (3DOF-VMAT). METHODS & MATERIALS: Twenty-five prostate patients treated with High Dose Rate...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8892164/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35252598 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tipsro.2022.02.003 |
_version_ | 1784662089470574592 |
---|---|
author | Kong, Vickie C. Dang, Jennifer Li, Winnie Navarro, Inmaculada Padayachee, Jerusha Malkov, Victor Winter, Jeff Raman, Srinivas Berlin, Alejandro Catton, Charles Warde, Padraig Chung, Peter |
author_facet | Kong, Vickie C. Dang, Jennifer Li, Winnie Navarro, Inmaculada Padayachee, Jerusha Malkov, Victor Winter, Jeff Raman, Srinivas Berlin, Alejandro Catton, Charles Warde, Padraig Chung, Peter |
author_sort | Kong, Vickie C. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: To compare the dosimetry of prostate stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) delivered by adaptive intensity modulated radiotherapy (A-IMRT) and 3 degree of freedom volumetric modulated arc therapy (3DOF-VMAT). METHODS & MATERIALS: Twenty-five prostate patients treated with High Dose Rate (HDR) brachytherapy followed by SBRT were included (fifteen with hydrogel spacer in place for treatment). Interfraction changes in the volume of prostate, rectum and bladder were measured. Fractional dose to these structures was estimated for A-IMRT and 3DOF-VMAT for comparison against the corresponding reference dose and between each other. RESULTS: Clinically acceptable dose was delivered to prostate in all 125 fractions through A-IMRT and 3DOF-VMAT. A-IMRT was better than 3DOF-VMAT in reducing dose to 1 cm(3) of rectum. Conversely, 3DOF-VMAT was superior in sparing 50% and 20% of rectum. When comparing the reference and delivered dose, there was no significant difference for Bladder D5cm(3) for either technique. However, rectum in the high dose region benefited more from A-IMRT by being irradiated to a lower than reference dose in more fractions than 3DOF-VMAT. Hydrogel spacer reduced the rectal dose and was associated with a smaller deviation from reference dose for rectum D50% for A-IMRT. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the presence of large interfraction organ volumes changes, clinically acceptable dose was delivered to the prostate by both systems. A-IMRT facilitated a greater rectal sparing from the high dose region than 3DOF-VMAT. Further reduction in rectal dose could be achieved by hydrogel spacer to displace the rectum, or by adaptation delivered by VMAT. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8892164 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88921642022-03-04 Dosimetric comparison of MR-guided adaptive IMRT versus 3DOF-VMAT for prostate stereotactic radiotherapy Kong, Vickie C. Dang, Jennifer Li, Winnie Navarro, Inmaculada Padayachee, Jerusha Malkov, Victor Winter, Jeff Raman, Srinivas Berlin, Alejandro Catton, Charles Warde, Padraig Chung, Peter Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Research article INTRODUCTION: To compare the dosimetry of prostate stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) delivered by adaptive intensity modulated radiotherapy (A-IMRT) and 3 degree of freedom volumetric modulated arc therapy (3DOF-VMAT). METHODS & MATERIALS: Twenty-five prostate patients treated with High Dose Rate (HDR) brachytherapy followed by SBRT were included (fifteen with hydrogel spacer in place for treatment). Interfraction changes in the volume of prostate, rectum and bladder were measured. Fractional dose to these structures was estimated for A-IMRT and 3DOF-VMAT for comparison against the corresponding reference dose and between each other. RESULTS: Clinically acceptable dose was delivered to prostate in all 125 fractions through A-IMRT and 3DOF-VMAT. A-IMRT was better than 3DOF-VMAT in reducing dose to 1 cm(3) of rectum. Conversely, 3DOF-VMAT was superior in sparing 50% and 20% of rectum. When comparing the reference and delivered dose, there was no significant difference for Bladder D5cm(3) for either technique. However, rectum in the high dose region benefited more from A-IMRT by being irradiated to a lower than reference dose in more fractions than 3DOF-VMAT. Hydrogel spacer reduced the rectal dose and was associated with a smaller deviation from reference dose for rectum D50% for A-IMRT. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the presence of large interfraction organ volumes changes, clinically acceptable dose was delivered to the prostate by both systems. A-IMRT facilitated a greater rectal sparing from the high dose region than 3DOF-VMAT. Further reduction in rectal dose could be achieved by hydrogel spacer to displace the rectum, or by adaptation delivered by VMAT. Elsevier 2022-03-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8892164/ /pubmed/35252598 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tipsro.2022.02.003 Text en © 2022 University Health Network https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Research article Kong, Vickie C. Dang, Jennifer Li, Winnie Navarro, Inmaculada Padayachee, Jerusha Malkov, Victor Winter, Jeff Raman, Srinivas Berlin, Alejandro Catton, Charles Warde, Padraig Chung, Peter Dosimetric comparison of MR-guided adaptive IMRT versus 3DOF-VMAT for prostate stereotactic radiotherapy |
title | Dosimetric comparison of MR-guided adaptive IMRT versus 3DOF-VMAT for prostate stereotactic radiotherapy |
title_full | Dosimetric comparison of MR-guided adaptive IMRT versus 3DOF-VMAT for prostate stereotactic radiotherapy |
title_fullStr | Dosimetric comparison of MR-guided adaptive IMRT versus 3DOF-VMAT for prostate stereotactic radiotherapy |
title_full_unstemmed | Dosimetric comparison of MR-guided adaptive IMRT versus 3DOF-VMAT for prostate stereotactic radiotherapy |
title_short | Dosimetric comparison of MR-guided adaptive IMRT versus 3DOF-VMAT for prostate stereotactic radiotherapy |
title_sort | dosimetric comparison of mr-guided adaptive imrt versus 3dof-vmat for prostate stereotactic radiotherapy |
topic | Research article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8892164/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35252598 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tipsro.2022.02.003 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kongvickiec dosimetriccomparisonofmrguidedadaptiveimrtversus3dofvmatforprostatestereotacticradiotherapy AT dangjennifer dosimetriccomparisonofmrguidedadaptiveimrtversus3dofvmatforprostatestereotacticradiotherapy AT liwinnie dosimetriccomparisonofmrguidedadaptiveimrtversus3dofvmatforprostatestereotacticradiotherapy AT navarroinmaculada dosimetriccomparisonofmrguidedadaptiveimrtversus3dofvmatforprostatestereotacticradiotherapy AT padayacheejerusha dosimetriccomparisonofmrguidedadaptiveimrtversus3dofvmatforprostatestereotacticradiotherapy AT malkovvictor dosimetriccomparisonofmrguidedadaptiveimrtversus3dofvmatforprostatestereotacticradiotherapy AT winterjeff dosimetriccomparisonofmrguidedadaptiveimrtversus3dofvmatforprostatestereotacticradiotherapy AT ramansrinivas dosimetriccomparisonofmrguidedadaptiveimrtversus3dofvmatforprostatestereotacticradiotherapy AT berlinalejandro dosimetriccomparisonofmrguidedadaptiveimrtversus3dofvmatforprostatestereotacticradiotherapy AT cattoncharles dosimetriccomparisonofmrguidedadaptiveimrtversus3dofvmatforprostatestereotacticradiotherapy AT wardepadraig dosimetriccomparisonofmrguidedadaptiveimrtversus3dofvmatforprostatestereotacticradiotherapy AT chungpeter dosimetriccomparisonofmrguidedadaptiveimrtversus3dofvmatforprostatestereotacticradiotherapy |