Document Detail


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.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  23835376     Owner:  NLM     Status:  In-Data-Review    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
Concurrent radiotherapy to the pelvis plus a prostate boost with long-term androgen deprivation is a standard of care for locally advanced prostate cancer. IMRT has the ability to deliver highly conformal dose to the target while lowering irradiation of critical organs around the prostate. Volumetric-modulated arc therapy is able to reduce treatment time, but its impact on organ sparing is still controversial when compared to static gantry IMRT. We compared the two techniques in simultaneous integrated boost plans. Ten patients with locally advanced prostate cancer were included. The planning target volume (PTV) 1 was defined as the pelvic lymph nodes, the prostate, and the seminal vesicles plus setup margins. The PTV2 consisted of the prostate with setup margins. The prescribed doses to PTV1 and PTV2 were 54 Gy in 37 fractions and 74 Gy in 37 fractions, respectively. We compared simultaneous integrated boost plans by means of either a seven coplanar static split fields IMRT, or a one-arc (RA1) and a two-arc (RA2) RapidArc planning. All three techniques allowed acceptable homogeneity and PTV coverage. Static IMRT enabled a better homogeneity for PTV2 than RapidArc techniques. Sliding window IMRT and VMAT permitted to maintain doses to OAR within acceptable levels with a low risk of side effects for each organ. VMAT plans resulted in a clinically and statistically significant reduction in doses to bladder (mean dose IMRT: 50.1 ± 4.6Gy vs. mean dose RA2: 47.1 ± 3.9 Gy, p = 0.037), rectum (mean dose IMRT: 44± 4.5 vs. mean dose RA2: 41.6 ± 5.5 Gy, p = 0.006), and small bowel (V30 IMRT: 76.47 ± 14.91% vs. V30 RA2: 47.49 ± 16.91%, p = 0.002). Doses to femoral heads were higher with VMAT but within accepted constraints. Our findings suggest that simultaneous integrated boost plans using VMAT and sliding window IMRT allow good OAR sparing while maintaining PTV coverage within acceptable levels.
Authors:
Olivier Riou; Pauline Regnault de la Mothe; David Azria; Norbert Ailleres; Jean-Bernard Dubois; Pascal Fenoglietto
Related Documents :
10571606 - Effect of prucalopride, a new enterokinetic agent, on gastrointestinal transit and anor...
10809936 - An efficacy and safety analysis of exelon in alzheimer's disease patients with concurre...
3886256 - Safety and tolerability of multiple doses of imipenem/cilastatin.
25085456 - Dosimetry modeling for focal high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy.
9838176 - An investigation of let 'finger-prints' in tradescantia.
24283716 - Total arsenic in raw and boiled portions of norway lobster (nephrops norvegicus) from t...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article     Date:  2013-07-08
Journal Detail:
Title:  Journal of applied clinical medical physics / American College of Medical Physics     Volume:  14     ISSN:  1526-9914     ISO Abbreviation:  J Appl Clin Med Phys     Publication Date:  2013  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2013-07-09     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101089176     Medline TA:  J Appl Clin Med Phys     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  4094     Citation Subset:  IM    
Affiliation:
Montpellier Cancer Institute. olivier.riou@icm.unicancer.fr.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Deep inspiration breath-hold technique guided by an opto- electronic system for extracranial stereot...
Next Document:  Evaluation of different techniques for CT radiation profile width measurement.