Retrospective evaluation of dosimetric quality for prostate carcinomas treated with 3D conformal, intensity modulated and volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy. Issue 4 (19th November 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Crowe, Scott B.; Kairn, Tanya; Middlebrook, Nigel; Hill, Brendan; Christie, David R. H.; Knight, Richard T.; Kenny, John; Langton, Christian M.; Trapp, Jamie V.
• Is Part Of: Journal of medical radiation sciences. Volume 60:Issue 4(2013:Dec.)
• Page Start: 131
• Page End: 138
• Publication Date: 2013-11-19
• Subjects: Radiology, Medical -- Periodicals; Radiology, Medical -- Australia -- Periodicals; Radiology, Medical -- New Zealand -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Diagnostic imaging -- Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1002/jmrs.24
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2051-3895

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="jmrs24-abs-0001"> <title>Abstract</title> <sec id="jmrs24-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Introduction</title> <p>This study examines and compares the dosimetric quality of radiotherapy treatment plans for prostate carcinoma across a cohort of 163 patients treated across five centres: 83 treated with three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), 33 treated with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and 47 treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).</p> </sec> <sec id="jmrs24-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods</title> <p>Treatment plan quality was evaluated in terms of target dose homogeneity and organs at risk (OAR), through the use of a set of dose metrics. These included the mean, maximum and minimum doses; the homogeneity and conformity indices for the target volumes; and a selection of dose coverage values that were relevant to each OAR. Statistical significance was evaluated using two‐tailed Welch's <italic>T</italic>‐tests. The Monte Carlo DICOM ToolKit software was adapted to permit the evaluation of dose metrics from DICOM data exported from a commercial radiotherapy treatment planning system.</p> </sec> <sec id="jmrs24-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>The 3DCRT treatment plans offered greater planning target volume dose homogeneity than the other two treatment modalities. The IMRT and VMAT plans offered greater dose reduction in the OAR: with increased compliance with recommended OAR dose constraints, compared to conventional 3DCRT treatments. When compared to each other, IMRT and VMAT did not provide significantly different treatment plan quality for like‐sized tumour volumes.</p> </sec> <sec id="jmrs24-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions</title> <p>This study indicates that IMRT and VMAT have provided similar dosimetric quality, which is superior to the dosimetric quality achieved with 3DCRT.</p> </sec> </abstract>