Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evaluation of plan quality for IMPT and VMAT in the treatment of patients with prostate cancer / 中华放射医学与防护杂志
Chinese Journal of Radiological Medicine and Protection ; (12): 19-25, 2020.
Artigo em Chinês | WPRIM | ID: wpr-798773
ABSTRACT
Objective@#To study the dosimetric characteristics and plan quality of PTV-based intensity modulated proton radiotherapy (IMPT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for prostate cancer, so as to provide a reference for clinical application.@*Methods@#A total of 10 prostate cancer cases were included in this retrospective study. IMPT and RapidArc plans were designed by RayStation and Eclipse TPS based on PTV, respectively. For each case, IMPT plans were generated using multiple field optimization (MFO) technique with two parallel-opposed lateral fields, whereas RapidArc plans were generated using double-arc technique (two full arcs). Final dose calculation of IMPT was conducted by pencil beam(PB) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm, respectively, with adopted data model from the pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy system of IBA Protues Plus(IBA Group, Belgium); The data model originated from the linear accelerator of Varian Clinac iX (Varian Medical Systems, America) was used for RapidArc plans. Dosimetric parameters of DVH and dose distribution were used to compare the dose differences in targets and organs at risk (OARs) between these two treatment techniques.@*Results@#For targets, HIs of PB-IMPT and MC-IMPT were slightly better than that of RapidArc , but CI of IMPT was slightly lower than that of RapidArc; D1% of PB-IMPT was significantly better than those of MC-IMPT and RapidArc (Z=-2.805, -2.803, P<0.05). PB-IMPT and MC-IMPT achieved better protection than RapidArc on rectum V30(Z=-2.191, -1.988, P<0.05)and Dmean(Z=-2.599, -2.497, P<0.05), bladder V30(Z=-2.701, -2.701, P<0.05), V40(Z=-2.395, -2.395, P<0.05)and Dmean(Z=-2.701, -2.701, P<0.05). There was no significant difference between PB-IMPT and MC-IMPT plans for prostate cancer, except for the D1% [(73.86±67.34) Gy vs.(75.45±2.01) Gy] (RBE) and HI [(0.040±0.010) vs. (0.058±0.020)] of the target.@*Conclusions@#Both techniques can meet the clinical requirements, but IMPT showed significant dosimetric advantages compared with RapidArch by reducing the dose to OARs and improving the plan quality.

Texto completo: DisponíveL Índice: WPRIM (Pacífico Ocidental) Tipo de estudo: Estudo observacional / Estudo prognóstico Idioma: Chinês Revista: Chinese Journal of Radiological Medicine and Protection Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Artigo

Similares

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS

Texto completo: DisponíveL Índice: WPRIM (Pacífico Ocidental) Tipo de estudo: Estudo observacional / Estudo prognóstico Idioma: Chinês Revista: Chinese Journal of Radiological Medicine and Protection Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Artigo