Comparative Study of Fast Superposition, Superposition Algorithm in Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Techniques for Prostate Cancer

M. Zope, D. Patil, Angel Kuriakose, P. Aslam, B. George, Abhijeet Mandal
{"title":"Comparative Study of Fast Superposition, Superposition Algorithm in Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy Techniques for Prostate Cancer","authors":"M. Zope, D. Patil, Angel Kuriakose, P. Aslam, B. George, Abhijeet Mandal","doi":"10.4236/ijmpcero.2020.92007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to compare the dosimetric coverage of the Planning Target Volume (PTV) and the dose to main organs at risk (OARs) between two different algorithms fast superposition (FSUP), superposition (SUP) using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques for prostate cancer. Ten patients with prostate cancer were selected for this study. For each patient, IMRT plans were created with 6 MV photon beam quality using CMS XiO treatment planning system. The delivery of IMRT was carried out using the step and shoot techniques. The dose coverage for each patient was designated to an ICRU report 62 reference point in the PTV, medium coverage of the planned target volume to be 95% of the prescribed dose while the maximum dose in the target volume to be not greater than 107% of the prescribed dose. A hypofractionated prescription dose of 70 Gy/28# at 2.5 Gy per fraction was used. Besides we compared the number of MUs and OARs dose to D15%, D25%, D35%, D50% on both algorithm planning sets. For target, this evaluation was made with comparing the conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI). In our study, the results show the OARs got less dose from the SUP algorithm compared to FSUP algorithms. Statistically not significant difference was observed in V107% of PTV, MU/CC, conformity Index (p = 0.057, p = 0.215, p = 0.370) and 95% PTV Volume received prescription dose from both Plans. But Homogeneity Index for both algorithms was statistically significant (p = 0.000, p = 0.001). For prostate cancer, the superposition algorithm showed better results in the IMRT plan compared to the fast superposition algorithm.","PeriodicalId":14028,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/ijmpcero.2020.92007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to compare the dosimetric coverage of the Planning Target Volume (PTV) and the dose to main organs at risk (OARs) between two different algorithms fast superposition (FSUP), superposition (SUP) using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques for prostate cancer. Ten patients with prostate cancer were selected for this study. For each patient, IMRT plans were created with 6 MV photon beam quality using CMS XiO treatment planning system. The delivery of IMRT was carried out using the step and shoot techniques. The dose coverage for each patient was designated to an ICRU report 62 reference point in the PTV, medium coverage of the planned target volume to be 95% of the prescribed dose while the maximum dose in the target volume to be not greater than 107% of the prescribed dose. A hypofractionated prescription dose of 70 Gy/28# at 2.5 Gy per fraction was used. Besides we compared the number of MUs and OARs dose to D15%, D25%, D35%, D50% on both algorithm planning sets. For target, this evaluation was made with comparing the conformity index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI). In our study, the results show the OARs got less dose from the SUP algorithm compared to FSUP algorithms. Statistically not significant difference was observed in V107% of PTV, MU/CC, conformity Index (p = 0.057, p = 0.215, p = 0.370) and 95% PTV Volume received prescription dose from both Plans. But Homogeneity Index for both algorithms was statistically significant (p = 0.000, p = 0.001). For prostate cancer, the superposition algorithm showed better results in the IMRT plan compared to the fast superposition algorithm.
前列腺癌调强放疗技术快速叠加、叠加算法的比较研究
本研究旨在比较两种不同算法快速叠加(FSUP)、叠加(SUP)使用调强放疗(IMRT)技术治疗前列腺癌的剂量学覆盖计划靶体积(PTV)和主要危险器官(OARs)剂量。本研究选取了10例前列腺癌患者。使用CMS XiO治疗计划系统为每位患者创建6 MV光子束质量的IMRT计划。采用步进法和射入法给药。每个患者的剂量覆盖率在PTV中指定为ICRU报告62参考点,计划靶体积的中等覆盖率为规定剂量的95%,而靶体积中的最大剂量不大于规定剂量的107%。减少分割处方剂量为70 Gy/28#,每部分2.5 Gy。此外,我们还比较了在两个算法规划集上,D15%、D25%、D35%、D50%的MUs和OARs剂量的数量。对于目标,通过比较一致性指数(CI)和同质性指数(HI)来进行评价。在我们的研究中,结果表明桨从SUP算法中获得的剂量比FSUP算法少。两组患者PTV的V107%、MU/CC、符合性指数(p = 0.057, p = 0.215, p = 0.370)和95% PTV容积接受处方剂量差异均无统计学意义。但两种算法的同质性指数具有统计学意义(p = 0.000, p = 0.001)。对于前列腺癌,与快速叠加算法相比,叠加算法在IMRT计划中显示出更好的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信