Dosimetric Evaluation of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy and 4-Field 3-D Conformal Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer Treatment

Uysal, Bora; Beyzadeoğlu, Murat; Sager, Omer; Dincoglan, Ferrat; Demiral, Selçuk; Gamsiz, Hakan; Surenkok, Serdar; Oysul, Kaan

doi:10.5152/balkanmedj.2012.075

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…IMRT with 6 and 15-MV had better protection for both femoral heads compared to that for 3D-CRT in both 6 and 15-MV photons. The present study is consistent with an article by Uysal et al [23] who concluded that the mean dose to right head of femur was 31.95 Gy in 3D-CRT and 17.98 Gy in IMRT and the mean dose to left head of femur was 31.5 Gy 18.79 Gy in 3D-CRT vs. IMRT respectively and consistent with other studies by Reddy et al [24]. When comparing low energy (3D-CRT 6-MV) vs. high energy (3D-CRT 15-MV) in terms of OARs, 3D-CRT 15-MV was slightly superior in sparing bladder and both femoral heads compared to 3D-CRT 6-MV and the differences were statistically significant.…”

Section: D-crtsupporting

confidence: 94%

Comparison of intensity modulated and 3- dimensional conformal ‎radiotherapy for prostate cancer using ‎6-MV and 15-MV photon ‎energies

AL-Shareef

Attalla

Khalil

et al. 2020

Arab Journal of Nuclear Sciences and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in men. The purpose of this work is to compare between intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) versus three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) planning in patients with prostate cancer using 6-MV and 15-MV photon energies. Twenty patients with localized prostate cancer were planned on Xio treatment planning system. Four treatment plans were generated for each patient. IMRT whether 6 or 15 MV beam was slightly better in terms of target coverage, but not significant (p>0.05) in comparison to 3D-CRT in both beam energies. IMRT was better than 3D-CRT in terms of organs at risk (OARs) sparing and conformity index (CI) in both 6 and 15-MV whereas 3D-CRT in both 6 and 15-MV yielded better homogeneity index (HI) compared to IMRT 6 and 15-MV. The number of monitor units (MU) increased in IMRT compared to 3D-CRT. Also, MU increased in low energy compared to high energy whether in 3D-CRT or IMRT (p<0.05). When IMRT 6-MV and IMRT 15-MV were compared, no significant difference was found in terms of target coverage and OARs except the rectum which was better in IMRT 6-MV compared to IMRT 15-MV. IMRT 6-MV technique should be prioritized when user has options for treatment and then 3D-CRT as a second line when the former is not available. The choice of the energies (6 and 15MV) used with 3D-CRT depends largely on patient's body geometry, while the use of a high energy IMRT 15-MV is not recommended.

show abstract

Section: D-crtsupporting

confidence: 94%

Comparison of intensity modulated and 3- dimensional conformal ‎radiotherapy for prostate cancer using ‎6-MV and 15-MV photon ‎energies

AL-Shareef

Attalla

Khalil

et al. 2020

Arab Journal of Nuclear Sciences and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The doses to both femora and that to penile bulb in favour of IMRT revealed high statistically significant difference, whereas the P values were 0.001 and 0.009, respectively. In a similar study, Uysal et al 15 compared between IMRT and 3D-CRT dosimetric plans for a 68 Gy dose in 20 patients with low/moderate risk prostate cancer. They found a statistically significant better target organ dose homogeneity with the 7-field IMRT plan (<0.05).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosimetric comparison of 3D conformal conventional radiotherapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy both in conventional and high dose radiation for prostate carcinoma

Nasr

2016

Kasr-Al-Aini J.of Clin. Onc. and Nuc. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Radiotherapy plays an important role in the management of prostate cancer. There are ongoing efforts to deliver the optimum radiation dose to the prostate while minimizing it to at risk pelvic structures. Aim: To compare the dose coverage of planning target volume (PTV) and organs-at-risk (OAR) between intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and conventional three dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for the same plan of prostate cancer patients in both conventional dose and high dose. Methods: Plans of 15 prostate cancer patients with low-or intermediate risk, treated by 3D-CRT, were compared with IMRT to the same dose and to a higher dose. We used XIO-treatment planning system for 3D-CRT and Monaco treatment planning system for IMRT. Results: Mean and minimum dose to PTV were equal, but the mean maximum dose was significantly higher in IMRT (72Gy) than 3D-CRT. Doses to critical organs in IMRT plans were lower than 3D-CRT, even in the increased dose of 80Gy. Conclusion: IMRT is recommended as the standard of care in treatment of prostate carcinoma. Applying escalated dose is recommended.

show abstract

“…Arc Modulation Optimization Algorithm (AMOA) has been utilized for optimization of target volume coverage and critical organ sparing. SBRT [38][39][40][41][42][43][44] .…”

Section: Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Target Volume Definition for Radiosurgery of Atypical Meningiomas with Multimodality Imaging

Demiral

Beyzadeoğlu

Dincoglan

et al. 2020

JHOR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Meningiomas are most common intracranial benign tumors comprising around one third of all intracranial neoplasms, and typically have benign and indolent nature with slow-growing behaviour. Benign meningiomas are slow growing tumors typically following an indolent disease course. Nevertheless, atypical or anaplastic meningiomas may follow a more aggressive disease course with invasion of critical structures and recurrences. In the current study, we evaluate the incorporation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for radiosurgery treatment planning of atypical meningiomas. Materials and Methods Atypical meningioma radiosurgery target volume determination with and without incorporation of MRI has been evaluated. Ground truth target volume used as the reference has been outlined by the board-certified group of radiation oncologists after comprehensive assessment, thorough collaboration and consensus. Results Target volume definition by use of Computed Tomography (CT)-only imaging and by CT-MR fusion based imaging has been comparatively evaluated in this study for linear accelerator (LINAC)-based radiosurgical management of atypical meningioma. Ground truth target volume defined by the board-certified radiation oncologists after detailed evaluation, collaboration, colleague peer review and consensus has been found to be identical to target determination by use of CT-MR fusion based imaging. Conclusion Despite significant progress in neurosurgical techniques over the years, complete surgical resection may not be feasible in the presence of meningiomas located at eloquent brain areas in close association with important neurovascular structures. RT may have a role in multidisciplinary management of meningiomas. Incorporation of MRI into treatment planning for radiosurgery of atypical meningiomas may improve target definition despite the need for further supporting evidence.

show abstract

Dosimetric Evaluation of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy and 4-Field 3-D Conformal Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer Treatment

Cited by 16 publications

References 17 publications

Comparison of intensity modulated and 3- dimensional conformal ‎radiotherapy for prostate cancer using ‎6-MV and 15-MV photon ‎energies

Comparison of intensity modulated and 3- dimensional conformal ‎radiotherapy for prostate cancer using ‎6-MV and 15-MV photon ‎energies

Dosimetric comparison of 3D conformal conventional radiotherapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy both in conventional and high dose radiation for prostate carcinoma

Assessment of Target Volume Definition for Radiosurgery of Atypical Meningiomas with Multimodality Imaging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About