Kopp RW, Duff M, Catalfamo F, Shah D, Rajecki M, Ahmad K. VMAT vs. 7-field-IMRT: assessing the dosimetric parameters of prostate cancer treatment with a 292-patient sample.
Med Dosim 2011;
36:365-72. [PMID:
21377863 DOI:
10.1016/j.meddos.2010.09.004]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2010] [Revised: 09/03/2010] [Accepted: 09/09/2010] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
We compared normal tissue radiation dose for the treatment of prostate cancer using 2 different radiation therapy delivery methods: volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. fixed-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Radiotherapy plans for 292 prostate cancer patients treated with VMAT to a total dose of 7740 cGy were analyzed retrospectively. Fixed-angle, 7-field IMRT plans were created using the same computed tomography datasets and contours. Radiation doses to the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (bladder, rectum, penile bulb, and femoral heads) were measured, means were calculated for both treatment methods, and dose-volume comparisons were made with 2-tailed, paired t-tests. The mean dose to the bladder was lower with VMAT at all measured volumes: 5, 10, 15, 25, 35, and 50% (p < 0.05). The mean doses to 5 and 10% of the rectum, the high-dose regions, were lower with VMAT (p < 0.05). The mean dose to 15% of the rectal volume was not significantly different (p = 0.95). VMAT exposed larger rectal volumes (25, 35, and 50%) to more radiation than fixed-field IMRT (p < 0.05). Average mean dose to the penile bulb (p < 0.05) and mean dose to 10% of the femoral heads (p < 0.05) were lower with VMAT. VMAT therapy for prostate cancer has dosimetric advantages for critical structures, notably for high-dose regions compared with fixed-field IMRT, without compromising PTV coverage. This may translate into reduced acute and chronic toxicity.
Collapse