Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T06:50:16.604Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and tomotherapy irradiation techniques in prostate cancers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2019

Taylan Tuğrul ,
Nezahat Olacak  and
Murat Köylü Open the ORCID record for Murat Köylü [Opens in a new window]
Taylan Tuğrul
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Yüzüncü Yıl University, Van, Turkey
Nezahat Olacak
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey
Murat Köylü*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: Murat Köylü, Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey. Tel: +905058794458. E-mail: ismubil81@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study is to compare three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and tomotherapy techniques used in the treatment of prostate cancer with target and critical organ doses to be included.

Materials and Methods

The target dose was studied with 4-and 6-field 3D-CRT, 7-field IMRT and tomotherapy techniques used to treat ten patients for prostate cancer and the dose volume histograms of critical organs were analyzed. The same target volumes, critical organs doses prescribed and treatment times for the three techniques were compared. Total dose of 76 Gy was given using 6 MV and 18 MV for 3D-CRT, 6 MV for IMRT and tomotherapy techniques.

Results

When we compare the three techniques, for rectum V35(p:0·001), V65(p:0·001), D50(p:0·020) and D25(p:0·002), for bladder V50(p:0·027), V65(p:0·006), V100(p:0·006) and for femoral head, the V50(p:0·001) dose was found to be significantly different and more favourable in the tomotherapy technique. Significant differences were found with IMRT planning in 50% of bladder volume (p:0·002). There is no significant difference between the three techniques for doses of 100% volume of rectum and 25% of volume of bladder. The minimum dose that healthy tissue received which was outside the tumour volume was investigated.

Findings

Doses to critical organs were lower using the tomotherapy technique. However, the minimum doses that healthy tissue received were higher for the tomotherapy technique. When the beam on times were compared for all three techniques, a significant difference was found in favor of tomotherapy.

Keywords

3D-CRTIMRTprostate cancer, radiotherapytomotherapy
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 276 - 279
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Cite this article: Tuğrul T, Olacak N, Köylü M. (2019) Comparison of conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy and tomotherapy irradiation techniques in prostate cancers. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice18: 276–279. doi: 10.1017/S1460396918000766

References

1. Baltimore, M D. Report on the management of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1995: 249–253.Google Scholar
2. Battermann, J J. I-125 implantation for localized prostate cancer: the Utrecht University Experience. Radiother Oncol 2000; 57: 269–272.10.1016/S0167-8140(00)00287-5Google Scholar
3. Ispir, B. Quality Control of intensity modulated Radiotherapy Planning in Prostate Cancer Treatment and Comparison of Dose Distribution with 3-D Conformal Radiotherapy. Master thesis 2010, Hacettepe University, Ankara.Google Scholar
4. Malone, S. Dose-escaleted 3D conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2004; 4 (4): 663–668.10.1586/14737140.4.4.663Google Scholar
5. Wolff, D, Stieler, F, Welzel, G. A volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) vs. serial tomotherapy, step-and-shoot IMRT and 3D-conformal RT for treatment of prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2009; 93: 226–233.10.1016/j.radonc.2009.08.011Google Scholar
6. Balog, J, Soisson, E. Helical tomotherapy quality assurance. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys 2008; 71 (1): 113–117.10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.10.001Google Scholar
7. Gunhan, B. Comparison of dosimetric methods of Delivery Quality Assurance (DQA) in Helical Tomotherapy. İstanbul University, Institute of Health Sciences, Fundamental Oncology PhD Thesis, 2010, İstanbul.Google Scholar
8. Mackie, T R, Olivera, G H, Kapatoes, J M, et al. Helical Tomotherapy. AAPM 2003, Wisconsin, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
9. Zelefsky, M J, Valicenti, R, Hunt, M, Perez, C A. Low-risk prostate cancer. Perez and Brady’s Principles and Practice of Radiation Oncology, 5th edn. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2008.Google Scholar
10. Michalski, J, Purdy, J, Bruner, D W , et al. RTOG 0126 A phase III randomized study of high dose 3D-CRT/IMRT versus standard dose 3D-CRT/IMRT in patients treated for localized prostate cancer. NRG Oncology 2008. United States of America.Google Scholar
11. Ramsey, CR, Scaperoth, D, Seibert, R. et al. Image-guided helical tomotherapy for localized prostate cancer: technique and initial clinical observations. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2007; 8 (2320): 37–51.10.1120/jacmp.v8i3.2320Google Scholar