Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:31:30.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2016

James C. L. Chow ,
Runqing Jiang ,
Alexander Kiciak  and
Daniel Markel
James C. L. Chow*
Affiliation:
Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
Runqing Jiang
Affiliation:
Medical Physics Department, Grand River Regional Cancer Center, Grand River Hospital, Kitchener, ON Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON
Alexander Kiciak
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON
Daniel Markel
Affiliation:
Medical Physics Unit, University of McGill, Montreal, QC, Canada
*
Correspondence to: Dr James Chow. Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University Health Network, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 2M9. Tel: 416 946 4501. Fax: 416 946 6566. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

We demonstrated that our proposed planning target volume (PTV) dose–volume factor (PDVF) can be used to evaluate the PTV dose coverage between the intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans based on 90 prostate patients.

Purpose

PDVF were determined from the prostate IMRT and VMAT plans to compare their variation of PTV dose coverage. Comparisons of the PDVF with other plan evaluation parameters such as D5%, D95%, D99%, Dmean, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI) and prostate tumour control probability (TCP) were carried out.

Methods and materials

Prostate IMRT and VMAT plans using the 6 MV photon beams were created from 40 and 50 patients, respectively. Dosimetric indices (CI, HI and GI), dose–volume points (D5%, D95%, D99% and Dmean) and prostate TCP were calculated according to the PTV dose–volume histograms (DVHs) of the plans. All PTV DVH curves were fitted using the Gaussian error function (GEF) model. The PDVF were calculated based on the GEF parameters.

Results

From the PTV DVHs of the prostate IMRT and VMAT plans, the average D99% of the PTV for IMRT and VMAT were 74·1 and 74·5 Gy, respectively. The average prostate TCP were 0·956 and 0·958 for the IMRT and VMAT plans, respectively. The average PDVF of the IMRT and VMAT plans were 0·970 and 0·983, respectively. Although both the IMRT and VMAT plans showed very similar prostate TCP, the dosimetric and radiobiological results of the VMAT technique were slightly better than IMRT.

Conclusion

The calculated PDVF for the prostate IMRT and VMAT plans agreed well with other dosimetric and radiobiological parameters in this study. PDVF was verified as an alternative of evaluation parameter in the quality assurance of prostate treatment planning.

Keywords

Dose–volume histogramGaussian error functionprostate IMRTprostate VMAT;treatment plan evaluation
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 263 - 268
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

1. Bortfeld, T. IMRT: a review and preview. Phys Med Biol 2006; 51: R363–R379.Google Scholar
2. Yu, C X. Intensity-modulated arc therapy with dynamic multileaf collimation: an alternative to tomotherapy. Phys Med Biol 1995; 40: 1435–1439.Google Scholar
3. Sanghani, M, Mignano, J. Intensity modulated radiation therapy: a review of current practice and future directions. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2006; 5: 447–450.Google Scholar
4. Teoch, M, Clark, C H, Wood, K, Whitaker, S, Nisbet, A. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: a review of current literature and clinical use in practice. Br J Radiol 2011; 84: 967–996.Google Scholar
5. De Gersem, W, Claus, F, De Wagter, C, Van Duyse, B, De Neve, W. Leaf position optimization for step-and-shoot IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 51: 1371–1388.Google Scholar
6. Otto, K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys 2008; 35: 310–317.Google Scholar
7. Rana, S. Intensity modulated radiation therapy versus volumetric intensity modulated arc therapy. J Med Radiat Sci 2013; 60: 81–83.Google Scholar
8. Quan, E M, Li, X, Li, Y et al. A comprehensive comparison of IMRT and VMAT plan quality for prostate cancer treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 83: 1169–1178.Google Scholar
9. Sale, C, Moloney, P. Dose comparison for conformal, IMRT and VMAT prostate plans. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2011; 55: 611–621.Google Scholar
10. Palma, D, Vollans, E, James, K et al. Volumetric modulated arc therapy for delivery of prostate radiotherapy: comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 72: 996–1001.Google Scholar
11. Hardcastle, N, Tome, W A, Foo, K, Hiller, A, Carolan, M, Metcalfe, P. Comparison of prostate IMRT and VMAT biologically optimized treatment plans. Med Dosim 2011; 36: 292–298.Google Scholar
12. Nelms, B E, Opp, D, Robinson, J et al. VMAT QA: measurement-guided 4D dose reconstruction on a patient. Med Phys 2012; 39: 4228–4238.Google Scholar
13. Elith, C A, Dempsey, S E, Cao, F, Farshadi, A, Warren-Forward, H M. The quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for early stage prostate cancer: a technical note. J Med Radiat Sci 2014; 61: 261–266.Google Scholar
14. Martin, N E, D’Amico, A V. Progress and controversies: radiation therapy for prostate cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2014; 64: 390–407.Google Scholar
15. Greene, D E, Mayadev, J S, Valicenti, R K. Radiation treatment for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Ther Adv Urol 2012; 4: 113–124.Google Scholar
16. Isa, M, Rehman, J, Afzal, M, Chow, J C L. Dosimetric dependence on the collimator angle in prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014; 2: 020419.Google Scholar
17. Rosenstein, B S, Capala, J, Efstathiou, J A et al. How will big data improve clinical and basic research in radiation therapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016 (in press).Google Scholar
18. Chow, J C L. Radiation treatment planning based on big data of previously treated plans using the Gaussian error function model. Proceedings, HPCS 2015, Advanced Computing and Big Data: Driving Competitiveness and Discovery, June 17-19, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp. 12, 2015.Google Scholar
19. Chow, J C L, Markel, D, Jiang, R. Technical note: dose-volume histogram analysis in radiotherapy using the Gaussian error function. Med Phys 2008; 35: 1398–1402.Google Scholar
20. Chow, J C L, Jiang, R, Markel, D. The effect of interfraction prostate motion on IMRT plans: a dose-volume histogram analysis using a Gaussian error function model. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2009; 10: 79–95.Google Scholar
21. Chow, J C L, Markel, D, Jiang, R. Technical note: calculation of normal tissue complication probability using Gaussian error function model. Med Phys 2010; 37: 4924–4929.Google Scholar
22. Chow, J C L, Jiang, R, Daniel, M. Variation of PTV dose distribution on patient size in prostate VMAT and IMRT: a dosimetric evaluation using the PTV dose-volume factor. J Radiother Pract 2014; 12: 189–194.Google Scholar
23. 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. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2013; 18: 272–278.Google Scholar
24. Chow, J C L, Jiang, R. Prostate volumetric-modulated arc therapy: dosimetry and radiobiological model variation between the single-arc and double-arc technique. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2013; 14: 3–12.Google Scholar
25. Li, G, Zhang, Y, Jiang, X et al. Evaluation of the ArcCHECK QA system for IMRT and VMAT verification. Phys Med 2013; 29: 295–303.Google Scholar
26. Feuvret, L, Noel, G, Mazeron, J J, Bey, P. Conformity index: a review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 64: 333–342.Google Scholar
27. Kataria, T, Sharma, K, Subramani, V, Karrthick, K P, Bisht, S S. Homogeneity index: an objective tool for assessment of conformal radiation treatments. J Med Phys 2012; 37: 207–213.Google Scholar
28. Sheth, N S, Sim, S, Cheng, J et al. A dose gradient index for stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy: evaluated with helical tomotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 81: S867–S868.Google Scholar
29. Okunieff, P, Morgan, D, Niemierko, A, Suit, H D. Radiation dose response of human tumours. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 32: 1227–1237.Google Scholar