Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of TomoTherapy and IMRT plans for prostate cancer

被引:1
作者
Pourfarshid, Amin [1 ]
Mesbahi, Asghar [2 ,3 ]
Mohammadzadeh, Mohammad [4 ,5 ]
Molazadeh, Mikaeil [2 ]
Zeinali, Ahad [1 ]
机构
[1] Urmia Univ Med Sci, Fac Med, Dept Med Phys, Orumiyeh 5756115198, Iran
[2] Tabriz Univ Med Sci, Fac Med, Dept Med Phys, Tabriz, Iran
[3] Med Radiat Res Team, Melbourne, Australia
[4] Tabriz Univ Med Sci, Sch Med, Dept Radiol & Radiotherapy, Tabriz, Iran
[5] Tabriz Univ Med Sci, Shahid Madani Hosp, Radiotherapy Dept, Tabriz, Iran
关键词
TomoTherapy; IMRT; Prostate; TCP; NTCP; Radiobiology; INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIOTHERAPY; HELICAL TOMOTHERAPY; CONFORMAL RADIOTHERAPY; ARC THERAPY;
D O I
10.1016/j.radphyschem.2024.112356
中图分类号
O64 [物理化学(理论化学)、化学物理学];
学科分类号
070304 ; 081704 ;
摘要
The purpose of this study was to investigate the dosimetric and radiobiological parameters of IMRT and TomoTherapy techniques to determine the best technique for the treatment of prostate cancer. Dynamic IMRT and Helical TomoTherapy (HT) radiotherapy techniques were used for the treatment planning of 10 patients with prostate cancer. Tumor Control Probability (TCP) and Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) based on Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) and Relative Seriality (RS) models as radiobiological parameters in addition to the multiple dosimetrics including Equivalent Uniform Dose (EUD), Heterogeneity Index (HI), and Conformity Index (CI) were evaluated. The mean NTCP value based on the LKB model for the IMRT method was higher than that for the HT method by approximately 4.62% for the bladder and 4.89% for the rectum, respectively. Similarly, in the RS model, the average NTCP values for IMRT were approximately 4.14% and 12.78% for the bladder and rectum, higher than the HT. The mean values of the HI and CI indices in IMRT were obtained as 0.06 f 0.01 and 1.13 f 0.08, respectively. With the HT technique, the index values were equal to 0.04 f 0.01 and 1.09 f 0.05, respectively. The mean doses to the rectum and right/left femoral heads were 13.19%, 11.32%, and 10.90% higher in IMRT than in HT, respectively. However, the mean dose to the bladder tissue was 17.13% higher in HT than in IMRT. Our study demonstrated that HT plans were superior to IMRT plans in terms of estimated NTCP using radiobiological models (LKB and RS) for healthily tissues. Except for the higher treatment duration, while having a desired and uniform dose distribution to the tumor, the TomoTherapy technique leads to preservation of healthy organs.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of IMRT, VMAT, and helical tomotherapy planning techniques in hippocampal sparing whole brain radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost for multiple brain metastases
    S. Balasubramanian
    M. K. Shobana
    D. Anabalagan
    P. Thanasekar
    S. Joel
    Prekshi Chaudhary
    Radiation and Environmental Biophysics, 2024, 63 : 47 - 57
  • [32] Use of tomotherapy in treatment of synchronous bilateral breast cancer: dosimetric comparison study
    Wadasadawala, T.
    Visariya, B.
    Sarin, R.
    Upreti, R. R.
    Paul, S.
    Phurailatpam, R.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2015, 88 (1048)
  • [33] Dosimetric comparison of adaptive and scheduled plans in adaptive teletherapy of prostate cancer
    Herein, Andras
    Szegedi, Domonkos
    Galdi, Adam
    Pocza, Tamas
    Pesznyak, Csilla
    Gesztesi, Laszlo
    Jorgo, Kliton
    Agoston, Peter
    Takacsi-Nagy, Zoltan
    Major, Tibor
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2024, 194 : S4271 - S4272
  • [34] Conversion of the helical tomotherapy plans to the step-and-shoot IMRT plans for patients with hip prosthesis during radiotherapy for prostate cancer
    Olminska, Maria
    Piotrowski, Tomasz
    Litoborska, Joanna
    Pawalowski, Bartosz
    Jodda, Agata
    PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2016, 32 (01): : 260 - 265
  • [35] Dosimetric Comparison of Helical Tomotherapy and HyperArc Treatment Plans for Angiosarcoma of the Scalp
    Inui, Shoki
    Takahashi, Yutaka
    Ueda, Yoshihiro
    Ohira, Shingo
    Washio, Hayate
    Ono, Shunsuke
    Miyazaki, Masayoshi
    Nishio, Teiji
    Koizumi, Masahiko
    Konishi, Koji
    ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 2023, 43 (07) : 3079 - 3087
  • [36] Comparing step-and-shoot IMRT with dynamic helical tomotherapy IMRT plans for head-and-neck cancer
    Van Vulpen, M
    Field, C
    Raaijmakers, CPJ
    Parliament, MB
    Terhaard, CHJ
    MacKenzie, MA
    Scrimger, R
    Lagendijk, JJW
    Fallone, BG
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2005, 62 (05): : 1535 - 1539
  • [37] ADJUVANT RADIOTHERAPY FOR GASTRIC CANCER: A DOSIMETRIC COMPARISON OF 3-DIMENSIONAL CONFORMAL RADIOTHERAPY, TOMOTHERAPY® AND CONVENTIONAL INTENSITY MODULATED RADIOTHERAPY TREATMENT PLANS
    Dahele, Max
    Skinner, Matthew
    Schultz, Brenda
    Cardoso, Marlene
    Bell, Chris
    Ung, Yee C.
    MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2010, 35 (02) : 115 - 121
  • [38] VMAT vs Eight Field Imrt: Dosimetric Comparison of Pelvic Radiotherapy for Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer in Terms of Bone Marrow Sparing
    Sezen, Duygu
    Alpan, Vildan
    Bolukbasi, Yasemin
    Saglam, Yucel
    Selek, Ugur
    TURK ONKOLOJI DERGISI-TURKISH JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY, 2019, 34 (03): : 137 - 144
  • [39] Correlation between intrafractional motion and dosimetric changes for prostate IMRT: Comparison of different adaptive strategies
    Saito, Nami
    Schmitt, Daniela
    Bangert, Mark
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2018, 19 (04): : 87 - 97
  • [40] Impact of dynamic IMRT and tomotherapy in pelvic cancers: A prospective dosimetric study with 51 patients
    Servagi-Vernat, S.
    Giraud, P.
    Fenoglietto, P.
    Azria, D.
    Lisbona, A.
    de La Rochefordiere, A.
    Zefkili, S.
    Fau, P.
    Resbeut, M.
    Huger, S.
    Peiffert, D.
    Meyer, P.
    Noel, G.
    Mazurier, J.
    Latorzeff, I.
    Biston, M. -C.
    Pommier, P.
    Ledu, D.
    Garcia, R.
    Chauvet, B.
    Dudouet, P.
    Belhomme, S.
    Kantor, G.
    Mahe, M. -A.
    CANCER RADIOTHERAPIE, 2014, 18 (02): : 111 - 118