Skip to main content Accessibility help

Dosimetric variations for high-risk prostate cancer by VMAT plans due to patient’s weight changes

  • David Miguel (a1), Victor de la Llana (a1), Daniel Martinez (a1), Angel del Castillo (a1), Delfín Alonso (a1), Jesús-María de Frutos (a1), Carlos Andrés (a1), Manuel Agulla (a1), Ricardo Torres (a1) and Francisco López-Lara (a1)...



The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of anatomical changes in prostate cancer patients on the target coverage when using 6 MV beams-VMAT therapy and to propose strategies that allow us to evaluate the dose or correct it by normalization without having to perform a new simulation.

Methods and materials:

Ten patients of high-risk prostate cancer were chosen for the study. All test plans were delivered using the same isocenter and monitor units as the original plan and compared against the original unedited plan. The expansion and contraction of body contours due to size changes was mimicked by increasing and decreasing the body contour with depths of −2, −1·5, …, 1·5, 2 cm, in the anterior, and both lateral directions of the patient. A total of 90 plans were evaluated, 9 for each patient. Dose-volume histogram statistics were extracted from each plan and normalized to prescription dose.


Weight changes resulted in considerable dose modifications to the target and critical structures. Plans were found to be varied with 2·9% ± 0·3% per cm SSD change for VMAT treatment with a correlation index close to one. Therefore, doses variations were linear to the changes of depth. Gamma index evaluation was performed for the 10 renormalized plans. All of them passed criteria of 3%/3 mm in at least 98.2% of points. Eight of them passed criteria in 99% points. Gamma index 4%/4 mm passed 100% points in all patients for the chosen region of interest.


The dosimetry estimation presented in this study shows important data for the radiation oncology staff to justify whether a CT rescan is necessary or not when a patient experiences weight changes during treatment. Based on the results of our study, discrepancies between real dose and planned dose were >5% for 1·7 cm of difference in external contour in the anterior and both lateral directions of the patient.


Corresponding author

Author for correspondence: David Miguel, Hospital Clinico Universitario de Valladolid, Valladolid 47014, Spain. Email:


Hide All
1.Torre, L A, Bray, F, Siegel, R L, Ferlay, J, Lortet-Tieulent, J, Jemal, A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2015; 65 (2): 87108.
2.Mottet, N, Bellmunt, J, Bolla, M et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol 2017; 71 (4): 618629.
3.Pollack, A, Hanlon, A L, Horwitz, E M et al. Dosimetry and preliminary acute toxicity in the first 100 men treated for prostate cancer on a randomized hypofractionation dose escalation trial. Int J Radiat Oncol 2006; 64 (2): 518526.
4.Nguyen, N P, Davis, R, Bose, S R et al. International Geriatric Radiotherapy Group the IGR. Potential applications of image-guided radiotherapy for radiation dose escalation in patients with early stage high-risk prostate cancer. Front Oncol 2015; 5 (18): 17.
5.Rodriguez, C, Freedland, S J, Deka, A et al. Body mass index, weight change, and risk of prostate cancer in the cancer prevention study II nutrition cohort. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007; 16 (1): 6369.
6.Bolze, M S, Fosmire, G J, Stryker, J A, Chung, C K, Flipse, B G. Taste acuity, plasma zinc levels, and weight loss during radiotherapy: a study of relationships. Radiology 1982; 144 (1): 163169.
7.Houweling, A C, Fukata, K, Kubota, Y et al. The impact of interfractional anatomical changes on the accumulated dose in carbon ion therapy of pancreatic cancer patients. Radiother Oncol 2016; 119 (2): 319325.
8.Choi, H S, Jo, G S, Chae, J P et al. Defining the optimal time of adaptive replanning in prostate cancer patients with weight change during volumetric arc radiotherapy: a dosimetric and mathematical analysis using the gamma index. Comput Math Methods Med 2017; 2017: 4149591.
9.Pair, M L, Du, W, Rojas, H D et al. Dosimetric effects of weight loss or gain during volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Med Dosim 2013; 38 (3): 251254.
10.Chow, J C L, Jiang, R. Dosimetry estimation on variations of patient size in prostate volumetric-modulated arc therapy. Med Dosim 2013; 38 (1): 4247.
11.Chow, J C L, Jiang, R. Comparison of dosimetric variation between prostate IMRT and VMAT due to patient’s weight loss: patient and phantom study. Reports Pract Oncol Radiother 2013; 18 (5): 272278.
12.Low, D A, Harms, W B, Mutic, S, Purdy, J A. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys 1998; 25 (5): 656661.
13.Low, D A, Harms, W B, Mutic, S, Purdy, J A. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys 1998; 25 (5): 656661.
14.Mans, A, Schuring, D, Arends, M P et al. The NCS code of practice for the quality assurance and control for volumetric modulated arc therapy. Phys Med Biol 2016; 61 (19): 72217235.
15.Cutright, D, Gopalakrishnan, M, Roy, A, Panchal, A, Mittal, B B. DVH Analytics: a DVH database for clinicians and researchers. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2018; 19 (5): 413427.
16.Williams, G, Tobler, M, Leavitt, D. Pitfalls in normalization for intensity-modulated radiation therapy planning. Med Dosim 2005; 30 (4): 194200.
17.Kouloulias, V E. Quality assurance in radiotherapy. Eur J Cancer 2003; 39 (4): 415422.
18.Klein, E E, Drzymala, R E, Purdy, J A, Michalski, J. Errors in radiation oncology: a study in pathways and dosimetric impact. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2005; 6 (3): 8194.



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed