Comparison of Multiple Treatment Planning Techniques for High-Grade Glioma Tumors Near to Critical Organs.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare 6 treatment planning methods (5-beam coplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), 7-beam coplanar IMRT, 7-beam noncoplanar IMRT, 2 full arc coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), 2 half partial arc coplanar VMAT, and 2 half partial arc noncoplanar VMAT) for high-grade gliomas with planning target volumes (PTVs) overlapping the optic pathway and/or brainstem. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 27 previously-treated patients with high-grade gliomas were replanned for treatment with IMRT5, IMRT7, IMRT7-non, VMAT2f, VMAT2h, and VMAT2h-non. In order to perform a comparative study of the treatment outcomes, 3 tumor localizations (right-sided, left-sided, and central tumors) were selected. Patients were administered a PTV dose of 60 Gy in 30 fractions with a maximum permitted dose of 110%. RESULTS: Comparison of the 3 IMRT plans and 3 VMAT plans was performed for all 27 patients. The median conformity index was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in all IMRT plans compared to all VMAT plans in the case of right sided tumors. Significant differences were also observed between coplanar and noncoplanar plans in IMRT and VMAT in right-sided tumors (p < 0.05). Differences in brainstem mean doses were only found to be significant between coplanar and noncoplanar plans in centrally-located tumors. In right- and left-sided tumors, the VMAT2f plans demonstrated higher values than all IMRT plans in their mean values for radiation doses to the ipsilateral optic nerves, contralateral optic nerves, ipsilateral lens, ipsilateral eye, contralateral lens, contralateral eye, and contralateral optic nerves, as well in the maximums for the optic chiasm and contralateral optic nerves. Significantly faster treatment times were achieved with all VMAT plans compared to IMRT plans. CONCLUSION: IMRT techniques provided better target coverage than VMAT plans. However, VMAT techniques reduced treatment delivery time more than IMRT techniques. Technique selection for tumors located in 3 different localizations should be individualized in accordance with patients' specific parameters.

Dosimetric and physical comparison of IMRT and CyberKnife plans in the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

AIM: The aim of our study was the dosimetric and physical evaluation of the CK and IMRT treatment plans for 16 patients with localized prostate cancer. BACKGROUND: Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is one of the recent technical advances in radiotherapy. The prostate is a well suited site to be treated with IMRT. The challenge of accurately delivering the IMRT needs to be supported by new advances such as image-guidance and four-dimensional computed conformal radiation therapy (4DCRT) tomography. CyberKnife (CK) provides real time orthogonal X-ray imaging of the patient during treatment course to follow gold fiducials installed into the prostate and to achieve motion correlation between online acquired X-ray imaging and digital reconstructed radiographs (DRRs) which are obtained from planning computed tomography images by translating and rotating the treatment table in five directions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixteen IMRT and CK plans were performed to be compared in terms of conformity (CI), heterogeneity indices (HI), percentage doses of 100% (V100), 66% (V66), 50% (V50), 33% (V33) and 10% (V10) volumes of the bladder and rectum. Dose-volume histograms for target and critical organs, (CI) and indices (HI) and isodose lines were analyzed to evaluate the treatment plans. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in the percentage rectal doses delivered to V10, V33, and V50 of the rectum were detected in favor of the CK plans (p values; <0.001, <0.001 and 0.019, respectively). The percentage doses for V66 and V100 of the rectum were larger in CK plans (13%, 2% in IMRT and 21%, 3% in CK plans, respectively). Percentage bladder doses for V10 and V33 were significantly lower in CK plans [96% in IMRT vs 48% in CK (p < 0.001) and 34% in IMRT vs 24% in CK (p = 0.047)]. Lower percentage doses were observed for V50, V66 of the bladder for the IMRT. They were 5.4% and 3.45% for IMRT and 13.4% and 8.05% for CK, respectively. Median CI of planning target volume (PTV) for IMRT and CK plans were 0.94 and 1.23, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both systems have a very good ability to create highly conformal volumetric dose distributions. Median HI of PTV for IMRT and CK plans were 1.08 and 1.33, respectively (p < 0.001).