Persistently better treatment planning results of intensity-modulated (IMRT) over conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in prostate cancer patients with significant variation of clinical target volume and/or organs-at-risk.

PURPOSE: To compare the dose coverage of planning and clinical target volume (PTV, CTV), and organs-at-risk (OAR) between intensity-modulated (3D-IMRT) and conventional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) before and after internal organ variation in prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We selected 10 patients with clinically significant interfraction volume changes. Patients were treated with 3D-IMRT to 80 Gy (minimum PTV dose of 76 Gy, excluding rectum). Fictitious, equivalent 3D-CRT plans (80 Gy at isocenter, with 95% isodose (76 Gy) coverage of PTV, with rectal blocking above 76 Gy) were generated using the same planning CT data set ("CT planning"). The plans were then also applied to a verification CT scan ("CT verify") obtained at a different moment. PTV, CTV, and OAR dose coverage were compared using non-parametric tests statistics for V95, V90 (% of the volume receiving 95 or 90% of the dose) and D50 (dose to 50% of the volume). RESULTS: Mean V95 of the PTV for "CT planning" was 94.3% (range, 88-99) vs 89.1% (range, 84-94.5) for 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT (p=0.005), respectively. Mean V95 of the CTV for "CT verify" was 97% for both 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT. Mean D50 of the rectum for "CT planning" was 26.8 Gy (range, 22-35) vs 43.5 Gy (range, 33.5-50.5) for 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT (p=0.0002), respectively. For "CT verify", this D50 was 31.1 Gy (range, 16.5-44) vs 44.2 Gy (range, 34-55) for 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT (p=0.006), respectively. V95 of the rectum was 0% for both plans for "CT planning", and 2.3% (3D-IMRT) vs 2.1% (3D-CRT) for "CT verify" (p=non-sig.). CONCLUSION: Dose coverage of the PTV and OAR was better with 3D-IMRT for each patient and remained so after internal volume changes.

Dosimetric comparison between coplanar and non coplanar field radiotherapy for ethmoid sinus cancer.

BACKGROUND: To compare non coplanar field (NCF) with coplanar field (CF) -intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) planning for ethmoid cancer. METHODS: Seven patients treated with NCF IMRT for ethmoid cancer were studied. A CF IMRT optimization was prepared with the same constraints as for the NCF treatment. The maximum point doses (D max) obtained for the different optic pathway structures (OPS) should differ no more than 3% from those achieved with the NCF IMRT plan. The distribution of the dose in the target volume and in the critical structures was compared between the two techniques, as well as the Conformity (CI) and the Homogeneity Indexes (HI) in the target volume. RESULTS: We noted no difference between the two techniques in the OPS for the D1, D2, and D5%, in the inner ear and controlateral lens for the average Dmax, in the temporo-mandibular joints for the average mean dose, in the cord and brainstem for the average D1%. The dose-volume histograms were slightly better with the NCF treatment plan for the planning target volume (PTV) with a marginally better HI but no impact on CI. We found a great improvement in the PTV coverage with the CF treatment plan for two patients with T4 tumors. CONCLUSION: IMRT is one of the treatment options for ethmoid cancer. The PTV coverage is optimal without compromising the protection of the OPS. The impact of non coplanar versus coplanar set up is very slight.