RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been widely accepted for the treatment of prostate cancer. In comparison with traditional three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), it improves local control while minimizing side effects. However, IMRT comes at a significantly higher cost. In this report, we describe the development of template-based IMRT (TB-IMRT) planning for prostate cancer that does not require additional resources above 3D-CRT. METHODS: Twenty patients previously treated using 3D-CRT were retrospectively planned using the TB-IMRT planning technique. Planning target volume coverage, dose to organs at risk, and resource usage were compared between 3D-CRT and TB-IMRT techniques. RESULTS: All 3D-CRT and TB-IMRT plans met the planning guidelines. TB-IMRT compared better than 3D-CRT in terms of the homogeneity index (0.039 ± 0.007 vs. 0.052 ± 0.008) and conformity index (0.866 ± 0.024 vs. 0.752 ± 0.054). TB-IMRT also provided better sparing of organs at risk. Planning times were significantly less for TB-IMRT (average 13.43 ± 2.18 minutes) compared with conventional plans (45.4 ± 17.0 minutes). Times required for patient-specific quality assurance were similar between TB-IMRT and 3D-CRT. CONCLUSIONS: The TB-IMRT technique for prostate allows for all the potential benefits of IMRT without any additional resources above conventional 3D-CRT.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: This study compared four different volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) beam arrangements for the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer examining plan quality and the impact on a radiotherapy department's resources. METHODS: Twenty prostate cases were retrospectively planned using four VMAT beam arrangements (1) a partial arc (PA), (2) one arc (1A), (3) one arc plus a partial arc (1A + PA) and (4) two arcs (2A). The quality of the dose distributions generated were compared by examining the overall plan quality, the homogeneity and conformity to the planning target volume (PTV), the number of monitor units and the dose delivered to the organs at risk. Departmental resources were considered by recording the planning time and beam delivery time. RESULTS: Each technique produced a plan of similar quality that was considered adequate for treatment; though some differences were noted. The 1A, 1A + PA and 2A plans demonstrated a better conformity to the PTV which correlated to improved sparing of the rectum in the 60-70 Gy range for the 1A + PA and 2A techniques. The time needed to generate the plans was different for each technique ranging from 13.1 min for 1A + PA to 17.8 min for 1A. The PA beam delivery time was fastest with a mean time of 0.9 min. Beam-on times then increased with an increase in the number of arcs up to an average of 2.2 min for the 2A technique. CONCLUSION: Which VMAT technique is best suited for clinical implementation for the treatment of prostate cancer may be dictated by the individual patient and the availability of departmental resources.
RESUMEN
As radiation therapy transitions from intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) it is important to consider the quality assurance (QA) of VMAT plans in light of what has previously been learned and developed in IMRT QA. This technical note assesses if IMRT based plan QA software, which has reduced the need in IMRT for phantom dose measurements on the linear accelerator, can be incorporated into VMAT QA processes. Twenty prostate cases were retrospectively planned using VMAT with one arc to deliver a prescription of 74 Gy in 37 fractions. A plan QA was performed using both IMSure (version 3.3), a software-based IMRT QA program, and ArcCHECK (version 6.2.3.5713), a phantom-based VMAT QA tool. Outcomes assessed included the time needed to perform the QA of both the IMSure and ArcCHECK QA methods, and agreement between planned dose and QA measured dose. On average per case, the ArcCHECK technique needed 31.5 min to perform the VMAT plan QA, while IMSure required 3.5 min to perform the same QA. All 20 cases passed dosimetric QA using ArcCHECK. However, using IMSure, three cases failed dosimetric QA using the departments existing IMRT QA criteria. This research has demonstrated that the IMRT QA software IMSure may be incorporated into the QA of VMAT plans, however the criteria to assess the dosimetry of the VMAT plans may need to be different to that for IMRT cases. The implication of this research for radiation therapists is to be critically aware of the differences between the plan QA requirements and methods for IMRT and those required for VMAT.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: This study aims to compare intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for the treatment of prostate cancer. Particular focus was placed on the impact IMRT and VMAT have on departmental planning and treatment resources. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty prostate cancer cases were retrospectively planned to compare 5-field IMRT to VMAT using a single arc (VMAT-1A) and 2 arcs (VMAT-2A). The impact on departmental resources was assessed by comparing the time needed to generate the dose distributions and to deliver the treatment plan. A comparison of plan quality was also performed by comparing homogeneity, conformity, the number of monitor units (MUs), and dose to the organs at risk. RESULTS: IMRT and VMAT-2A were able to produce adequate plans for all cases. Using VMAT-1A, planning guidelines were achieved in 8 of the 20 cases. IMRT provided an improved dose distribution and the best homogeneity to the planning target volume. Also, the IMRT plans were generated significantly faster than both VMAT techniques. VMAT planning provided significantly improved conformity and used significantly fewer monitor units than IMRT. VMAT-1A treatments were significantly faster than both IMRT and VMAT-2A. VMAT plans delivered lower dose to the bladder and heads of femur, and an increased dose to the rectum in the low dose region. CONCLUSION: IMRT may have an advantage over VMAT for the treatment of prostate cancers. This is primarily due to the uncertainty of achieving planning guidelines using VMAT and the extended time needed to generate the VMAT plans.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The primary aim of this study is to compare intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for the radical treatment of prostate cancer using version 10.0 (v10.0) of Varian Medical Systems, RapidArc radiation oncology system. Particular focus was placed on plan quality and the implications on departmental resources. The secondary objective was to compare the results in v10.0 to the preceding version 8.6 (v8.6). METHODS: Twenty prostate cancer cases were retrospectively planned using v10.0 of Varian's Eclipse and RapidArc software. Three planning techniques were performed: a 5-field IMRT, VMAT using one arc (VMAT-1A), and VMAT with two arcs (VMAT-2A). Plan quality was assessed by examining homogeneity, conformity, the number of monitor units (MUs) utilized, and dose to the organs at risk (OAR). Resource implications were assessed by examining planning and treatment times. The results obtained using v10.0 were also compared to those previously reported by our group for v8.6. RESULTS: In v10.0, each technique was able to produce a dose distribution that achieved the departmental planning guidelines. The IMRT plans were produced faster than VMAT plans and displayed improved homogeneity. The VMAT plans provided better conformity to the target volume, improved dose to the OAR, and required fewer MUs. Treatments using VMAT-1A were significantly faster than both IMRT and VMAT-2A. Comparison between versions 8.6 and 10.0 revealed that in the newer version, VMAT planning was significantly faster and the quality of the VMAT dose distributions produced were of a better quality. CONCLUSION: VMAT (v10.0) using one or two arcs provides an acceptable alternative to IMRT for the treatment of prostate cancer. VMAT-1A has the greatest impact on reducing treatment time.
RESUMEN
CD36 is a transmembrane glycoprotein receptor that engages in signal transduction implicated in important physiological and pathophysiological events. CD36 in platelets has been shown physically and functionally to associate with members of the Src family of protein tyrosine kinases, Fyn, Lyn, and Yes, but the nature of this important association has never been rigorously examined. Here, we show that CD36 does not associate with Lyn through a protein-mediated interaction. In COS cells transfected with both CD36 and Lyn these molecules did not co-precipitate, suggesting a requirement for an intermediary molecule absent from the COS cells. Yeast two-hybrid analysis confirmed that the carboxylterminal cytoplasmic tail of CD36 did not bind Lyn directly, and no Lyn binding protein bound to CD36 in a cDNA library screen. Conversely, when the CD36-Lyn association seen in platelets was analysed by biophysical parameters, dissociation occurred at 37 degrees C and also by solubilisation in octylglucoside, indicative of a lipid-mediated association. Since both CD36 and Lyn are enriched in Triton X-100-insoluble rafts at the plasma membrane, these findings point to the importance of raft-associated lipids in CD36-mediated signal transduction.
