A retrospective planning analysis comparing intensity modulated radiation therapy (<scp>IMRT</scp>) to volumetric modulated arc therapy (<scp>VMAT</scp>) using two optimization algorithms for the treatment of early‐stage prostate cancer

Elith, Craig A.; Dempsey, Shane E.; Warren‐Forward, Helen

doi:10.1002/jmrs.22

Cited by 20 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are in compliance with RapidArc demonstrating better conformity to the PTV than IMRT. Similar results were observed by Elith et al in their study on twenty prostate cancer cases 28 . They assessed the plan quality of both VMAT and IMRT and concluded that IMRT plans had the advantages of more homogeneous dose distribution and less time in calculation, while the VMAT plans gave better conformity to the target volume with more sparing of OAR.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Dosimetric Evaluation of Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques in Treating Patients with Prostatic Cancer

Amin

Sayed

Ezzat

2017

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

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Different radiotherapy techniques were developed to deliver optimal dose to prostate cancer while sparing nearby organs at risk (OARs). Aim: To compare different dosimetric methods used to evaluate sparing of OARs and to select radiotherapy plan which provides the most OARs sparing during prostate cancer treatment. Methods: We used computed tomography data sets of 10 patients. For each data set, six plans were calculated; two RapidArc, two intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and two 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) plans. Isodose distribution and dose volume histograms (DVHs) were used for plan analysis and evaluation. The dose to OAR was compared by calculating the DVH for each OAR in different plans. The dose (D) delivered to certain percentage (n) of an organ (Dn) was then determined. In addition, the Critical Organ Scoring Index (COSI) and the modified COSI (mCOSI) were calculated. Results: 3DCRT with 5 fields produced the lowest rectal dose, RapidArc with bladder avoidance sector (RapidArcBladder) produced the lowest bladder dose and IMRT with 9 beams produced the lowest dose to the femoral heads. The COSI and MCOSI values of the two IMRT plans were significantly lower than those of 3DCRT and RapidArc (<0.0001). The calculation of mCOSI produced similar results to that obtained with COSI (<0.0001). Conclusion:The results of this study showed that COSI and MCOSI are better dosimetric methods in selecting the plan with more sparing of OARs than Dn. Meanwhile among advanced radiotherapy techniques, RapidArc and 3DCRT are more sparing of OARs than IMRT.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Dosimetric Evaluation of Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques in Treating Patients with Prostatic Cancer

Amin

Sayed

Ezzat

2017

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

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Earlier investigations using similar equipment (TPS and linac manufacturer)18, 43 confirm this result for prostate carcinoma treatment. Other studies found reverse results,39, 44, 45, 46 but referred to RapidArc ® compared to sliding window IMRT, which needs more MU than our step‐and‐shoot technique. For the re‐irradiation of spinal column metastasis with the same equipment as the present study,16 there was no difference in the number of MU between IMRT and VMAT which can be taken as an example that different targets must be investigated individually.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy and intensity‐modulated radiation therapy treatment planning for prostate cancer with flattened beam and flattening filter free linear accelerators

Treutwein¹,

Hipp

Koelbl³

et al. 2017

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study on patients with localized prostate cancer was set up to investigate valuable differences using flattened beam (FB) and flattening filter free (FFF) mode in the application of intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT). For ten patients, four different plans were calculated with Oncentra planning system of Elekta, using Synergy machines: IMRT and VMAT, with and without flattening filter. Homogeneity and conformity indexes, dose to the organs at risk, and measurements of peripheral dose and dosimetric plan verification including record of the delivery times were analyzed and statistically evaluated. The indexes for homogeneity and conformity (CTV and PTV) are either advantageous or not significantly different for FFF compared to FB with one minor exception. Regarding the doses to the organs at risk and the measured peripheral dose, equivalent or lower doses were delivered for FFF than with FB. Furthermore, the delivery times were significantly shorter for FFF. VMAT compared to IMRT reveals benefits or at least equivalent values. VMAT‐FFF combines the most advantageous plan quality parameters with the shortest delivery times and reduced peripheral dose and is therefore recommended for the given equipment and cancer localization.

show abstract

“…Sale and Moloney (21) reported that the irradiated volume to rectum at dose of 40 Gy, 50 Gy, 60 Gy, and 70 Gy were significantly reduced in VMAT, compared to IMRT. However, the study by Elith et al (30) suggested that there was no significant reduction in average percent volumes irradiated by VMAT at doses of 40 Gy and 50 Gy. These heterogeneous results may be due to the small sample size, planning strategies, or optimization algorithm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Dosimetric comparison of intensity‐modulated radiotherapy and volumetric‐modulated arc radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer: a meta‐analysis

Ren

Sun

Liu

et al. 2016

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) are two main radiotherapy techniques. The aim of this study is to explore which is the preferred technique in prostate treatment through the related publications and meta‐analysis. Two authors independently identified all relevant articles available regarding eligibility criteria on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until December 2015. Publication bias was evaluated with funnel plot, and statistical analyses were performed with Stata software. P<0.05 was thought statistically significant. Ten studies comprised a total of 110 patients; in total 110 IMRT plans and 110 VMAT plans that were included in this study. V40, V60, and V70 of rectum were significantly decreased in VMAT than in IMRT. However, V50 of rectum and V40, V50, V60, V70 of bladder had no statistical differences between IMRI and VMAT plans. Compared with IMRT, the treatment time and MUs of VMAT were significantly lower. VMAT protects rectum better than IMRT and improves the delivery efficiency. VMAT may be the preferred modality for treating prostate cancer.PACS number(s): 87.55. D‐

show abstract

A retrospective planning analysis comparing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using two optimization algorithms for the treatment of early‐stage prostate cancer

Cited by 20 publications

References 30 publications

Dosimetric Evaluation of Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques in Treating Patients with Prostatic Cancer

Dosimetric Evaluation of Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques in Treating Patients with Prostatic Cancer

Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy and intensity‐modulated radiation therapy treatment planning for prostate cancer with flattened beam and flattening filter free linear accelerators

Dosimetric comparison of intensity‐modulated radiotherapy and volumetric‐modulated arc radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer: a meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About