Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Dosimetric comparison of MR-guided adaptive IMRT versus 3DOF-VMAT for prostate stereotactic radiotherapy.
Kong, Vickie C; Dang, Jennifer; Li, Winnie; Navarro, Inmaculada; Padayachee, Jerusha; Malkov, Victor; Winter, Jeff; Raman, Srinivas; Berlin, Alejandro; Catton, Charles; Warde, Padraig; Chung, Peter.
Afiliação
  • Kong VC; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.
  • Dang J; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Li W; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.
  • Navarro I; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.
  • Padayachee J; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Malkov V; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.
  • Winter J; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Raman S; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.
  • Berlin A; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Catton C; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.
  • Warde P; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • Chung P; Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35252598
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

To compare the dosimetry of prostate stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) delivered by adaptive intensity modulated radiotherapy (A-IMRT) and 3 degree of freedom volumetric modulated arc therapy (3DOF-VMAT). METHODS & MATERIALS Twenty-five prostate patients treated with High Dose Rate (HDR) brachytherapy followed by SBRT were included (fifteen with hydrogel spacer in place for treatment). Interfraction changes in the volume of prostate, rectum and bladder were measured. Fractional dose to these structures was estimated for A-IMRT and 3DOF-VMAT for comparison against the corresponding reference dose and between each other.

RESULTS:

Clinically acceptable dose was delivered to prostate in all 125 fractions through A-IMRT and 3DOF-VMAT. A-IMRT was better than 3DOF-VMAT in reducing dose to 1 cm3 of rectum. Conversely, 3DOF-VMAT was superior in sparing 50% and 20% of rectum. When comparing the reference and delivered dose, there was no significant difference for Bladder D5cm3 for either technique. However, rectum in the high dose region benefited more from A-IMRT by being irradiated to a lower than reference dose in more fractions than 3DOF-VMAT. Hydrogel spacer reduced the rectal dose and was associated with a smaller deviation from reference dose for rectum D50% for A-IMRT.

CONCLUSIONS:

Despite the presence of large interfraction organ volumes changes, clinically acceptable dose was delivered to the prostate by both systems. A-IMRT facilitated a greater rectal sparing from the high dose region than 3DOF-VMAT. Further reduction in rectal dose could be achieved by hydrogel spacer to displace the rectum, or by adaptation delivered by VMAT.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Canadá

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Canadá