Dose–volume and biological-model based comparison between helical tomotherapy and (inverse-planned) IMAT for prostate tumours

Iori, Mauro; Cattaneo, Giovanni Mauro; Cagni, E.; Fiorino, Claudio; Borasi, Giovanni; Calandrino, R.; Iotti, Cinzia; Fazio, Ferruccio; Nahum, Alan E.

doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2008.03.003

Cited by 52 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…V95% (the volume receiving at least 95% of the prescribed dose) was reported as the target coverage. Homogeneity index (HI) was evaluated as the difference between the dose to 1% ( D 1) and 99% ( D 99) of PTV divided by the prescription dose ( Dp ),21

H I = \frac{D 1 - D 99}{D p} \times 100 %

…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosimetric benefits of intensity‐modulated radiotherapy and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy in the treatment of postoperative cervical cancer patients

Deng

Han

Chen³

et al. 2016

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the advantage of using complex volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in the treatment of gynecologic cancer has not yet been fully determined, the purpose of this study was to investigate the dosimetric advantages of VMAT by comparing directly with whole pelvic conformal radiotherapy (CRT) and intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the treatment of 15 postoperative cervical cancer patients. Four‐field CRT, seven‐field IMRT, and two‐arc VMAT plans were generated for each patient with identical objective functions to achieve clinically acceptable dose distribution. Target coverage and OAR sparing differences were investigated through dose‐volume histogram (DVH) analysis. Nondosimtric differences between IMRT and VMAT were also compared. Target coverage presented by V95% were 88.9% ± 3.8%, 99.9% ± 0.07%, and 99.9% ± 0.1% for CRT, IMRT, and VMAT, respectively. Significant differences on conformal index (CI) and conformal number (CN) were observed with CIs of 0.37 ± 0.07, 0.55 ± 0.04, 0.61 ± 0.04, and CNs of 0.33 ± 0.06, 0.55 ± 0.04, 0.60 ± 0.04 for CRT, IMRT, and VMAT, respectively. IMRT and VMAT decreased the dose to bladder and rectum significantly compared with CRT. No significant differences on the Dmean, V45, and V30 of small bowel were observed among CRT, IMRT, and VMAT. However, VMAT (10.4 ± 4.8 vs. 19.8 ± 11.0, P = 0.004) and IMRT (12.3 ± 5.0 vs. 19.8 ± 11.0, P = 0.02) decreased V40, increased the Dmax of small bowel and the irradiation dose to femoral heads compared with CRT. VMAT irradiated less dose to bladder, rectum, small bowel and larger volume of health tissue with a lower dose (V5 and V10) compared with IMRT, although the differences were not statistical significant. In conclusion, VMAT and IMRT showed significant dosimetric advantages both on target coverage and OAR sparing compared with CRT in the treatment of postoperative cervical cancer. However, no significant difference between IMRT and VMAT was observed except for slightly better dose conformity, slightly less MU, and significant shorter delivery time achieved for VMAT.

show abstract

H I = \frac{D 1 - D 99}{D p} \times 100 %

…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosimetric benefits of intensity‐modulated radiotherapy and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy in the treatment of postoperative cervical cancer patients

Deng

Han

Chen³

et al. 2016

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As reported by Iori et al [13], HT was found to favourably compare with respect to inverselyoptimized intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) in a recent investigation on 6 low-risk patients (without pelvis irradiation) when considering PTVs coverage and homogeneity of the dose distribution while assuring similar sparing of rectum and bladder. A worse result was found for the bulbus of the penis, due to the helical delivery of HT that is generally associated to a less steep gradient in the cranialcaudal direction compared to conventional delivery systems [16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…As reported in some published papers [13,15,16] HT compares favourably with respect to conventional IMRT and also to inverse-planned IMAT when considering the DVHs within PTVs as HT is able to generate very homogeneous dose distributions within each target volume, creating very deep gradient between different PTVs receiving different doses and between PTVs and OARs. In particular, our TOMOSIB approach enhances these potentialities, showing the ability of HT in differentiating between small PTVs (for instance overlap vs prostate).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physics aspects of prostate tomotherapy: Planning optimization and image-guidance issues

et al. 2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although, the main purpose of TCP/NTCP calculations has been to provide a surrogate tool for plan comparisons and optimum plan selection for a given treatment, there are many other investigations that have employed this approach to quantize the radiobiological consequences for different available modalities, and geometric errors, as well as comparing novel techniques for radiation therapy [2,[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. Moreover, several studies have utilized radiobiological modeling to evaluate the effect of geometric errors in image guided radiation therapy (IGRT), while others have applied this modeling for brachytherapy planning as well as radiation therapy with heavy ion beams [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32].…”

Section: An Overview On the Clinical Application Of Radiobiological Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Overview on the Clinical Application of Radiobiological Modeling in Radiation Therapy of Cancer

Mesbahi

Oladghaffari

2017

IJRRT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analyzing the dose distribution inside target volumes of cancer patients before radiation delivery and then selection of the biologically optimal dose distribution has been one of the crucial steps in recent treatment planning developments. Plan evaluation and optimization have been based on the physical dose distribution and dose-volume parameters for several decades. However, with the development of a. clinical radiobiology in both domains of tumor and normal tissue response to radiation, ii) existence of reliable clinical results, and b. emergence of new mathematical models in cancer biology and treatment, radiation scientists have been motivated to calculate tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for modern complex clinical treatment plans. The prediction of clinical outcome in terms of TCP in radiation therapy and its development have been an interesting subject of investigations for several decades. Additionally, this process has provided new information on radiotherapy consequences such as increased local control rates and lower complications rates. It also has helped treatment teams to choose optimum plans for individual patients. In this overview, we will look into some of these studies and give emphasis on potential benefits of TCP/NTCP calculations in different areas of radiation therapy such as plan evaluation, and the uncertainties associated with dose delivery. Keywords: Radiation therapy; Treatment planning; Radiobiological modelling;Tumor control probability; Normal tissue complication probability An Overview on the Clinical Application of Radiobiological Modeling in Radiation Therapy of Cancer 2/7Copyright: ©2017 Mesbahi et al.The β i parameter denotes the repairable part of radiation damage which varies over the population of patients. Also i g shows the fraction of patients having as their radiosensitivity [4].There are several models for NTCP calculations using DVH, dosimetric data of each patient. [4] One of the most applied models is the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) model [1]. The NTCP calculation in the LKB model is defined as:Where TD 50 (v) is the tolerance dose for a 50% complication probability caused by uniform irradiation to volume v, and where n is the volume exponent and m is a parameter that is inversely related to the steepness of the dose-response curve.The increasing number of publications on radiobiological modeling implies its progressive utilization in current clinical practice as well as in silico (computer) modelling research. Although, the main purpose of TCP/NTCP calculations has been to provide a surrogate tool for plan comparisons and optimum plan selection for a given treatment, there are many other investigations that have employed this approach to quantize the radiobiological consequences for different available modalities, and geometric errors, as well as comparing novel techniques for radiation therapy [2,[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. Moreover, several studies have ut...

show abstract

Dose–volume and biological-model based comparison between helical tomotherapy and (inverse-planned) IMAT for prostate tumours

Cited by 52 publications

References 37 publications

Dosimetric benefits of intensity‐modulated radiotherapy and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy in the treatment of postoperative cervical cancer patients

Dosimetric benefits of intensity‐modulated radiotherapy and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy in the treatment of postoperative cervical cancer patients

Physics aspects of prostate tomotherapy: Planning optimization and image-guidance issues

An Overview on the Clinical Application of Radiobiological Modeling in Radiation Therapy of Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About