Medical Dosimetry
Volume 36, Issue 3 , Pages 264-271, Autumn 2011

Treatment and Dosimetric Advantages Between VMAT, IMRT, and Helical TomoTherapy in Prostate Cancer

  • Chiao-Ling Tsai, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
  • ,
  • Jian-Kuen Wu, M.S.

      Affiliations

    • Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
  • ,
  • Hsiao-Ling Chao, M.S.

      Affiliations

    • Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
  • ,
  • Yi-Chun Tsai, M.S.

      Affiliations

    • Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
  • ,
  • Jason Chia-Hsien Cheng, M.D., M.S., Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
    • Graduate Institute of Oncology, National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan
    • Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to: Jason Chia-Hsien Cheng, M.D., M.S., Ph.D., Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, No. 7 Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei 100, Taiwan

Received 21 February 2010; accepted 10 May 2010. published online 15 July 2010.

Abstract 

We investigated the possible treatment and dosimetric advantage of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) over step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (step-and-hhoot IMRT) and helical tomotherapy (HT). Twelve prostate cancer patients undergoing VMAT to the prostate were included. Three treatment plans (VMAT, step-and-shoot IMRT, HT) were generated for each patient. The doses to clinical target volume and 95% of planning target volume were both ≥78 Gy. Target coverage, conformity index, dose to rectum/bladder, monitor units (MU), treatment time, equivalent uniform dose (EUD), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of targets, and rectum/bladder were compared between techniques. HT provided superior conformity and significantly less rectal volume exposed to 65 Gy and 40 Gy, as well as EUD/NTCP of rectum than step-and-shoot IMRT, whereas VMAT had a slight dosimetric advantage over step-and-shoot IMRT. Notably, significantly lower MUs were needed for VMAT (309.7 ± 35.4) and step-and-shoot IMRT (336.1 ± 16.8) than for HT (3368 ± 638.7) (p < 0.001). The treatment time (minutes) was significantly shorter for VMAT (2.6 ± 0.5) than step-and-shoot IMRT (3.8 ± 0.3) and HT (3.8 ± 0.6) (p < 0.001). Dose verification of VMAT using point dose and film dosimetry met the accepted criteria. VMAT and step-and-shoot IMRT have comparable dosimetry, but treatment efficiency is significantly higher for VMAT than for step-and-shoot IMRT and HT.

Key Words: Volumetric modulated arc therapy, Intensity-modulated radiation therapy, Helical tomotherapy, Prostate cancer

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0958-3947(10)00067-1

doi:10.1016/j.meddos.2010.05.001

Medical Dosimetry
Volume 36, Issue 3 , Pages 264-271, Autumn 2011