Localized Prostate Cancer: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) Versus Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT)–Which One is Better?

Olivera, J.; Penedo, Jorge; Marín, Juan Pelegrín Sánchez; Castejón, M.A. García; Silvera, C.M. Diaz; Prieto, I.; Luna, J.; Vasquez, W.; Casas, Ana

doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.05.2467

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Treatment of localized prostate cancer has been proven by clinical trial including hypo-fractionation radiation therapy (RT) dose escalation with Elective Nodal Irradiation and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with RT. [1][2][3][4][5] With the development of radiotherapy intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), it has been widely used in prostate cancer. Radiation therapy related toxicity is associated with high total RT dose, shorter recovery time, and the volume of neighboring organs at risk (OAR) normal tissues (rectum, bowel, and bladder) ever in prostate-only RT.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[6,7] In recent years, with the development of radiotherapy technology, IMRT has replaced 3DCRT as the most common method of radiation therapy for prostate cancer for its conformable dose distribution which can reduce normal tissue toxicity. [1,3] The most common method for IMRT delivery for prostate cancer involves [5][6][7][8][9] fixed gantry positions with computer-generated, sliding-window multi-leaf collimator positions to modulate the dose to the prostate. [8][9][10] A more recent IMRT technique named volume modulated arc therapy HS and GH contributed equally to this work.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dosimetric comparison of fixed field dynamic IMRT and VMAT techniques in simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy of prostate cancer

Sun

Wang²,

Huang³

et al. 2022

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-risk prostate cancer can take advantage of the combination of hypofractionated radiotherapy and pelvic conventional fraction radiotherapy. The comparison between fixed field dynamic IMRT and VMAT techniques can provide suggestions for clinical treatment. We selected 10 high-risk prostate cancer patients who received radiotherapy at the cancer center of Sun Yat-sen University from January 2016 to December 2019. The targets contained in prostate, seminal vesicles and pelvic lymph nodes. With the same prescription and optimized parameters, 9F, single-arc (1ARC) and double-arc (2ARC) treatment plans were developed. The dose distribution of the targets, OAR, MU, treatment time and gamma pass ratios of dose verification was compared. The D2% (69.37 ± 0.89) Gy, D50% (66.92 ± 0.63) Gy, HI (0.09 ± 0.02), and CI (0.83 ± 0.05) of PTV1 in 9F were slightly better than those of 1ARC which were (71.13 ± 1.21) Gy, (68.50 ± 0.76) Gy, (0.12 ± 0.02), (0.74 ± 0.07), except D98%, the difference was significant (P < .05). All dosimetry indices of PTV1 in 9F and 2ARC were close and have no significant differences (P > .05). The V95% (99.45 ± 0.78)% of PTV2 in 9F was slightly better than that in 1ARC (99.35 ± 1.28)%. The difference was significant (P < .05). All dosimetry indices of PTV2 in 9F and 2ARC were close and the difference was not significant (P > .05). The Dmean of the bladder and the V67.5 Gy of rectum between all three plans were similar. The Dmean of left and right femoral in 1ARC and 2ARC were lower than that in 9F, and the difference was significant (P < .05). Other dosimetry indices of OARs in 9F were lower than those in 1ARC and 2ARC, and much lower than 1ARC. The difference was significant (P < .05). Mean monitor units in 1ARC and 2ARC were fewer by 70.0% and 67.2% in comparison with 9F. The treatment mean time in 1ARC and 2ARC was shorter by 81.7% and 61% in comparison with 9F. Verification pass ratios of γ (3%/3 mm) were 97.8% (9F), 98.9% (1ARC) and 99.4% (2ARC) respectively. The difference was significant (P < .05). Compared with IMRT, VMAT improved delivery efficiency noticeably. Two arcs provided comparable tumor dosimetry coverage, but performed worse in dose sparing for bladder, rectum and small bowel. The IMRT plan was preferable to VMAT in prostate cancer simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosimetric comparison of fixed field dynamic IMRT and VMAT techniques in simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy of prostate cancer

Sun

Wang²,

Huang³

et al. 2022

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prostate cancer is the most common noncutaneous cancer in men, with 1,212,653 case excepted in 2019 in China alone. Treatment of localized prostate cancer has been proven by clinical trial including hypo-fractionation RT dose escalation with ENI and ADT combined with RT [1][2][3][4][5]. With the development of radiotherapy IMRT, it has been generally used in prostate cancer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With the development of radiotherapy IMRT, it has been generally used in prostate cancer. Radiation therapy related toxicities is associated with high total RT dose, short recovery time, and the volume of neighboring OAR normal tissues (rectum, bowel and bladder) ever in prostate-only RT 6,7 .In recent years, with the development of radiotherapy technology, IMRT has replaced 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy as the most common method of radiation therapy for prostate cancer for its conformable dose distributions which can reduce normal tissue toxicity [1,3]. The most common method for IMRT delivery for prostate cancer involves [5][6][7][8][9], fixed gantry positions with computergenerated, sliding-window multi-leaf collimator positions to modulate dose to the prostate [8][9][10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosimetric comparison of fixed field dynamic IMRT and VMAT techniques in simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy of Prostate Cancer

Sun

Liu

Chen

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: As the high risk prostate cancer can be benefited from the combination of hypo-fractionated radiotherapy and pelvic conventional fraction radiotherapy, the comparison between fixed field dynamic IMRT and VMAT techniques can provide suggestion for clinical treatment. Methods: We selected 10 patients with high risk prostate cancer who received radiotherapy at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center from 2013 January to 2013 December. The target including the prostate, seminal vesicle and pelvic lymph nodes. With the same prescription and optimized parameters, 9 field IMRT, single arc and double arc VMAT treatment plans were designed, which are expressed by 9F, 1ARC and 2ARC respectively. The dose distribution of the targets, organs at risk (OAR), monitor units (MUs), treatment time and gamma pass ratios of dose verification were compared. Results: The D2%(69.37±0.89)Gy,D50%(66.92±0.63)Gy, HI(0.09±0.02) and CI(0.83±0.05) of PTV1 in 9F were slightly better than those of 1ARC which were (71.13±1.21) Gy, (68.50±0.76)Gy, (0.12±0.02), (0.74±0.07), except D98% , the difference were significant(p<0.05). All dosimetric indices of PTV1 in 9F and 2ARC were close and has no significant differences (p>0.05). The V95 %(99.45±0.78)% of PTV2 in 9F was slightly better than that in 1ARC (99.35±1.28)%, the difference was significant (p<0.05). All dosimetric indices of PTV2in 9F and 2ARC were close and the difference were no significant (p>0.05). The Dmean of bladder and the V67.5Gyof rectum between all three plans were similarity The Dmean of left and right femoral in 1ARC and 2ARC were lower than that in 9F, and the difference was significant (p<0.05). Other dosimetric indices of OARs in 9F were lower than those in 1ARC and 2ARC, and much lower than 1ARC, the difference were significant (p<0.05). The mean monitor units in 1ARC and 2ARC were fewer by 70.0% and 67.2% in comparison with 9F. The treatment mean time in 1ARC and 2ARC were shorter by 81.7% and 61% in comparison with 9F. The verification pass ratios of γ(3%/3mm)were 97.8% (9F), 98.9% (1ARC) and 99.4% (2ARC) respectively, the difference were significant(p<0.05). Conclusion: Compared with IMRT, VMAT improved delivery efficiency noticeably. Two arcs provided comparable tumor dosimetric coverage, but performed worse in dose sparing for bladder, rectum and small bowel. IMRT plan was better than VMAT in prostate cancer simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy.

show abstract

Localized Prostate Cancer: Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) Versus Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT)–Which One is Better?

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Dosimetric comparison of fixed field dynamic IMRT and VMAT techniques in simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy of prostate cancer

Dosimetric comparison of fixed field dynamic IMRT and VMAT techniques in simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy of prostate cancer

Dosimetric comparison of fixed field dynamic IMRT and VMAT techniques in simultaneous integrated boost radiotherapy of Prostate Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About