Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-ttsf8 Total loading time: 0.196 Render date: 2021-08-03T17:49:27.656Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

An institutional review: dosimetry comparison between simultaneous integrated boost IMRT and VMAT for prostate cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2020

Raheel Mukhtar
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, ShaukatKhanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Center, Lahore, Pakistan
Sumera Butt
Affiliation:
Clinical and Radiation Oncology Department, ShaukatKhanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Center, Lahore, Pakistan
Muhammad Abdur Rafaye
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, ShaukatKhanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Center, Lahore, Pakistan
Khalid Iqbal
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, ShaukatKhanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Center, Lahore, Pakistan
Sana Mazhar
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, ShaukatKhanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Center, Lahore, Pakistan
Tabinda Sadaf
Affiliation:
Clinical and Radiation Oncology Department, ShaukatKhanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Center, Lahore, Pakistan
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Purpose:

A comparative study was performed about the plan parameters and quality indices between volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer patients. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the two methods of external beam radiotherapy IMRT and VMAT in terms of plan quality and efficacy.

Material and method:

Fifteen high-risk prostate patients were planned for radiotherapy using 6 MV photon. Three dose levels were contoured having Planning Tumour Volume 1 (PTV1 = 48 Gy), Planning Tumour Volume 2 (PTV2 = 57.6 Gy) and Planning Tumour Volume 3 (PTV3 = 60 Gy). Setup margins were given using the CHIP trial method. The prescribed PTV3 dose was 60 Gy in 20 fractions which is biologically equivalent to 74 Gy in 37 fractions using α/β = 3. In case of IMRT, seven fixed beam angles 30, 60, 105, 180, 255, 300 and 330 were used and the dose was optimised using the sliding window method. In case of rapid arc technique, one or two full arcs were used for dose optimisation while keeping all the dose constraints and other planning parameters same used in IMRT. The plan evaluation parameters and Organ at risks (OARs) doses were calculated using a dose volume histogram (DVH).

Results:

The average D2, D5, D95 and PTVmean for PTV3 were 61.22, 61.13, 58.12, 60.00 Gy and 62.41 62.24 59.53 61.12 Gy for IMRT and VMAT, respectively. The averages V60 for bladder and V30 for rectum were 22.81, 25 and 67, 65% for IMRT and VMAT, respectively. The average homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) and gradient index (GI) were 1.04, 1.4833, 14.79 and 1.04, 1.704, 7.89 for IMRT and VMAT, respectively.

Conclusion:

VMAT takes less dose-delivery time and lesser number of monitoring units than IMRT, thus it compensates the intrafractional movements during dose delivery. The Dose GI in VMAT was much better than IMRT. This indicates sharper dose fall off near the normal tissue. No other major differences were observed in terms of plan evaluation parameters between IMRT and VMAT techniques. So, we conclude that VMAT technique is more efficient than IMRT in terms of plan quality and dose delivery.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Riou, O, de la Mothe, P R, Azria, Det al.Simultaneous integrated boost plan comparison of volumetric-modulated arc therapy and sliding window intensity-modulated radiotherapy for whole pelvis irradiation of locally advanced prostate cancer. J App Clin Med Phys 2013; 14 (4): 2635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gao, M, Li, Q, Ning, Zet al.Dosimetric comparison between step-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy for upper thoracic and cervical esophageal carcinoma. Med Dosim 2016; 41 (2): 131135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gautam, B. Literature review on IMRT and VMAT for prostate cancer. Am J Cancer Rev 2014; 2 (1): 5.Google Scholar
Mellon, E A, Javedan, K, Strom, T Jet al.A dosimetric comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy with step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol 2015; 5 (1): 1115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franzese, C, Fogliata, A, D’Agostino, G Ret al.Moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy with volumetric modulated arc therapy and simultaneous integrated boost for pelvic irradiation in prostate cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2017; 143 (7): 13011309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hesselberg, G, Fogarty, G, Haydu, Let al.Volumetric modulated arc therapy of the pelvic lymph nodes to the aortic bifurcation in higher risk prostate cancer: early toxicity outcomes. BioMed Res Int 2015; 2015: 696439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ishii, K, Ogino, R, Hosokawa, Yet al.Whole-pelvic volumetric-modulated arc therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: treatment planning and acute toxicity. J Radiat Res 2015; 56 (1): 141150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daoud, M A, Saleh, Y M, Elsherbini, Met al.Evaluation of acute toxicity and dosimetric parameters in high risk prostate cancer patients treated by high radiation doses. J Cancer Ther 2019; 10 (8): 654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onal, C, Sonmez, S, Erbay, Get al.Simultaneous integrated boost to intraprostatic lesions using different energy levels of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-arc therapy. Brit J Radiol 2014; 87 (1034): 20130617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, D, Osei, E, Fleck, Aet al.Retrospective dosimetric evaluation of VMAT plans for prostate cancer treatment. J Radiother Pract 2019; 18 (2): 155164.Google Scholar
Tsai, C-L, Wu, J-K, Chao, H-Let al.Treatment and dosimetric advantages between VMAT, IMRT, and helical tomotherapy in prostate cancer. Med Dosim 2011; 36 (3): 264271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, P, Happersett, L, Hunt, Met al.Volumetric modulated arc therapy: planning and evaluation for prostate cancer cases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76 (5): 14561462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ost, P, Speleers, B, De Meerleer, Get al.Volumetric arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for primary prostate radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost to intraprostatic lesion with 6 and 18 MV: a planning comparison study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 79 (3): 920926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoo, S, Wu, Q J, Lee, W Ret al.Radiotherapy treatment plans with RapidArc for prostate cancer involving seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 76 (3): 935942.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolff, D, Stieler, F, Welzel, Get al.Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. serial tomotherapy, step-and-shoot IMRT and 3D-conformal RT for treatment of prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2009; 93 (2): 226233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
David, D, Syndikus, I, Mossop, Het al.Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17 (8): 10471060.Google Scholar
Lee, W R. Hypofractionation for prostate cancer: tested and proven. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17 (8): 10201022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myrehaug, S, Chan, G, Craig, Tet al.A treatment planning and acute toxicity comparison of two pelvic nodal volume delineation techniques and delivery comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus volumetric modulated arc therapy for hypofractionated high-risk prostate cancer radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82 (4): e657e662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sale, C, Moloney, P. Dose comparisons for conformal, IMRT and VMAT prostate plans. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2011; 55 (6): 611621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pasler, P, Georg, D, Wirtz, Het al.Effect of photon-beam energy on VMAT and IMRT treatment plan quality and dosimetric accuracy for advanced prostate cancer. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 2011; 187 (12): 792798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jo, G S, Kim, M W, Baek, M Get al.Dosimetric comparison for Prostate VMAT of weight and photon energy change. J Korean Soc Radiat Ther 2018; 30 (1_2): 1725.Google Scholar
Yoon, M, Park, S Y, Shin, Det al.A new homogeneity index based on statistical analysis of the dose–volume histogram. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2007; 8 (2): 917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chow, J C, Jiang, R, Kiciak, Aet al.Dosimetric comparison between the prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using the planning target volume (PTV) dose–volume factor. J Radiother Pract 2016; 15 (3): 263268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cilla, S, Deodato, F, Digesù, Cet al.Assessing the feasibility of volumetric-modulated arc therapy using simultaneous integrated boost (SIB-VMAT): an analysis for complex head-neck, high-risk prostate and rectal cancer cases. Med Dosim 2014; 39 (1): 108116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paddick, I, Lippitz, B. A simple dose gradient measurement tool to complement the conformity index. J Neurosurg 2006; 105 (Supplement): 194201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maraghechi, B, Davis, J, Badu, Set al.Retrospective analysis of portal dosimetry pre-treatment quality assurance of prostate volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans. J Radiother Pract 2018; 17 (1): 4452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreibmann, E, Dhabaan, A, Elder, Eet al.Patient-specific quality assurance method for VMAT treatment delivery. Med Phys 2009; 36 (10): 45304535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Esposito, M, Bruschi, A, Bastiani, Pet al.Characterization of EPID software for VMAT transit dosimetry. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2018; 41 (4): 10211027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, L-M, Kang, M-L, Jiang, Bet al.A study of the dosimetric characteristics between different fixed-field IMRT and VMAT in early-stage primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma. Med Dosim 2018; 43 (1): 9199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quan, E M, Li, X, Li, Yet al.A comprehensive comparison of IMRT and VMAT plan quality for prostate cancer treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 83 (4): 11691178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iqbal, K, Isa, M, Buzdar, S Aet al.Treatment planning evaluation of sliding window and multiple static segments technique in intensity modulated radiotherapy. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2013; 18 (2): 101106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zulkafal, H M, Khan, M A, Ahmad, M Wet al.Volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment planning assessment for low-risk prostate cancer in radiotherapy. Clin Cancer Investig J 2017; 6 (4): 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopp, R W, Duff, M, Catalfamo, Fet al.VMAT vs. 7-field-IMRT: assessing the dosimetric parameters of prostate cancer treatment with a 292-patient sample. Med Dosim 2011; 36 (4): 365372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

An institutional review: dosimetry comparison between simultaneous integrated boost IMRT and VMAT for prostate cancer
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

An institutional review: dosimetry comparison between simultaneous integrated boost IMRT and VMAT for prostate cancer
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

An institutional review: dosimetry comparison between simultaneous integrated boost IMRT and VMAT for prostate cancer
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *