Dosimetric and physical comparison of IMRT and CyberKnife plans in the treatment of localized prostate cancer

Ceylan, Cemile; Kucuk, N.; Ayata, H.; Güden, Metin; Engin, K.

doi:10.1016/j.rpor.2010.10.003

Cited by 30 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Irradiation of patients using IMRT, VMAT, CK, and TT techniques is increasingly reported in the literature [16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Despite the technological differences related to the geometry of generated beams: the changing shape of the beam field vs circular tubes, the dose distributions we obtain as a result of the calculations are very comparable, of course, for "small" cancerous changes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 79%

Stereotactic radiosurgery of prostate cancer – dose distribution for VMAT and CyberKnife techniques

Ślosarek

Osewski

Grządziel

et al. 2016

Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New capabilities of biomedical accelerators allow for very precise depositing of the radiation dose and imaging verification during the therapy. In addition, computer algorithms calculating dose distributions are taking into account the increasing number of physical effects. Therefore, administration of high dose fractionation, which is consistent with radiobiology used in oncology, becomes safer and safer. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), which is very precise irradiation with high dose fractionation is increasingly widespread use in radiotherapy of prostate cancer. For this purpose different biomedical accelerators are used. The aim of this study is to compare dose distributions for two techniques: VMAT and CyberKnife. Statistical analysis was performed for the two groups of patients treated by VMAT technique (25 patients), and CyberKnife technique (15 patients). The analysis shows that the dose distributions are comparable, both in the treated area (prostate) and in the critical organs (rectum, urinary bladder, femoral heads). The results show that stereotactic radiosurgery of prostate cancer can be carried out on CyberKnife accelerator as well as on the classical accelerator with the use of VMAT technique.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 79%

Stereotactic radiosurgery of prostate cancer – dose distribution for VMAT and CyberKnife techniques

Ślosarek

Osewski

Grządziel

et al. 2016

Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The average homogeneity difference ratio value was 11.03 ± 17.2. In five patients, the IMRT plans were more inhomogenous than the CyberKnife plans, and in the remaining seven patients, the CyberKnife plans were more inhomogenous when compared with the corresponding IMRT plans [14].…”

Section: Dose To Testesmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Our results are in accordance with a similar study done by Sabbir Hosaain, et al and Ceylan, et al [12][13] comparing these two modalities (CyberKnife and IMRT). However, in a study done by Shiu, et al comparing CyberKnife and IMRT dose distributions, they found the dose to critical organs were less in the IMRT plans [14]. RVR is less in all CyberKnife plans compared to the simulated IMRT plans reaching statistical significance at V100%(p=0.01), V95%(p=0.004), V90%(p=0.001), V80%(p=0.02), V70%(p=0.03), V60%(p=0.01), V50%(p=0.01), V40%(p=0.02), and V30%(p=0.001) levels indicating lower nonclinical target volume, non-organ at risk tissue exposure at these dose levels.…”

Section: Conformation Number (Cn) Is Defined Asmentioning

confidence: 96%

Dosimetric comparison of Stereotactic body radiotherapy and Intensity modulated radiotherapy to deliver hypofractionated radiotherapy in organ confined prostate cancer

Potharaju¹,

Murali²,

Gopalakrishna³

2013

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compared the dose conformity, homogeneity, dose to organs at risk, and remaining volume at risk of two radiotherapy techniques --stereotactic body radiotherapy and intensitymodulated radiotherapy (IMRT) to deliver hypofractionated radiotherapy in organ-confined prostate cancer. Eleven successive patients treated on the CyberKnife stereotactic robotic radiosurgical system were taken up for this study. The CT images, including the structures contoured, were imported through DICOM RT from the Multiplan (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) treatment planning system to the Plato Sunrise treatment planning system (Nucletron, The Netherlands) for creating IMRT treatment plans on the Linac. Treatment planning was done for five fractions, each fraction prescribed to a dose of 7.25 Gy to the planning target volume. Dose volume histograms were generated for the CyberKnife and Linac treatments for comparison. As per our protocol, a plan was considered adequate if at least 95% of planning target volume received the prescribed dose and satisfied the following constraints: a) volume of the rectum receiving 36Gy (V36) to < 1cc and b) volume of the bladder receiving 37Gy (V37) to < 10cc. Both the treatment techniques plans resulted in adequate planning target volume coverage (p value for D95, D90, D5, and V100% was 0.402, 0.97, 0.013, and 0.012, respectively). CyberKnife plans were more conformal (p value 0.001). Remaining volume at risk dose was significantly less in all CyberKnife plans at [V100% (p=0.01), V95% (p=.004), V90% (p=.001), V80% (p=0.02), V70 (p=0.03), V40% (p=0.021), and V30% (p=0.001)] dose levels. The mean dose to rectum was lower in the CyberKnife plans (The p value for V100%, V80%, V50% and V30% dose levels was 0.02, 0.0001, 0.0002, and 0.12, respectively).

show abstract

“…Dosimetric studies have compared treatment plans using different IMRT modalities in patients with prostate cancer [8][9][10][11][12] . The dosimetric outcome differed when comparing plans using RapidArc and the VMAT in comparison to IMRT in the treatment of prostate cancer [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Dosimetric and physical comparison of IMRT and CyberKnife plans in the treatment of localized prostate cancer

Abstract: Both systems have a very good ability to create highly conformal volumetric dose distributions. Median HI of PTV for IMRT and CK plans were 1.08 and 1.33, respectively (p < 0.001).

Cited by 30 publications

References 30 publications

Stereotactic radiosurgery of prostate cancer – dose distribution for VMAT and CyberKnife techniques

Stereotactic radiosurgery of prostate cancer – dose distribution for VMAT and CyberKnife techniques

Dosimetric comparison of Stereotactic body radiotherapy and Intensity modulated radiotherapy to deliver hypofractionated radiotherapy in organ confined prostate cancer

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About