Evaluation of plan quality for IMPT and VMAT in the treatment of patients with prostate cancer

Q4 Medicine
Tao Yang, Xu Shouping, C. Xie, Gong Xuan, W. Xu, B. Qu, Zishen Wang, Chunfeng Fang, L. Cao
{"title":"Evaluation of plan quality for IMPT and VMAT in the treatment of patients with prostate cancer","authors":"Tao Yang, Xu Shouping, C. Xie, Gong Xuan, W. Xu, B. Qu, Zishen Wang, Chunfeng Fang, L. Cao","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.0254-5098.2020.01.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective To study the dosimetric characteristics and plan quality of PTV-based intensity modulated proton radiotherapy (IMPT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for prostate cancer, so as to provide a reference for clinical application. Methods A total of 10 prostate cancer cases were included in this retrospective study. IMPT and RapidArc plans were designed by RayStation and Eclipse TPS based on PTV, respectively. For each case, IMPT plans were generated using multiple field optimization (MFO) technique with two parallel-opposed lateral fields, whereas RapidArc plans were generated using double-arc technique (two full arcs). Final dose calculation of IMPT was conducted by pencil beam(PB) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm, respectively, with adopted data model from the pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy system of IBA Protues Plus(IBA Group, Belgium); The data model originated from the linear accelerator of Varian Clinac iX (Varian Medical Systems, America) was used for RapidArc plans. Dosimetric parameters of DVH and dose distribution were used to compare the dose differences in targets and organs at risk (OARs) between these two treatment techniques. Results For targets, HIs of PB-IMPT and MC-IMPT were slightly better than that of RapidArc , but CI of IMPT was slightly lower than that of RapidArc; D1% of PB-IMPT was significantly better than those of MC-IMPT and RapidArc (Z=-2.805, -2.803, P<0.05). PB-IMPT and MC-IMPT achieved better protection than RapidArc on rectum V30(Z=-2.191, -1.988, P<0.05)and Dmean(Z=-2.599, -2.497, P<0.05), bladder V30(Z=-2.701, -2.701, P<0.05), V40(Z=-2.395, -2.395, P<0.05)and Dmean(Z=-2.701, -2.701, P<0.05). There was no significant difference between PB-IMPT and MC-IMPT plans for prostate cancer, except for the D1% [(73.86±67.34) Gy vs.(75.45±2.01) Gy] (RBE) and HI [(0.040±0.010) vs. (0.058±0.020)] of the target. Conclusions Both techniques can meet the clinical requirements, but IMPT showed significant dosimetric advantages compared with RapidArch by reducing the dose to OARs and improving the plan quality. Key words: Prostate cancer; IMPT; VMAT; RapidArc; PBS","PeriodicalId":36403,"journal":{"name":"中华放射医学与防护杂志","volume":"7 1","pages":"19-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华放射医学与防护杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.0254-5098.2020.01.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective To study the dosimetric characteristics and plan quality of PTV-based intensity modulated proton radiotherapy (IMPT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for prostate cancer, so as to provide a reference for clinical application. Methods A total of 10 prostate cancer cases were included in this retrospective study. IMPT and RapidArc plans were designed by RayStation and Eclipse TPS based on PTV, respectively. For each case, IMPT plans were generated using multiple field optimization (MFO) technique with two parallel-opposed lateral fields, whereas RapidArc plans were generated using double-arc technique (two full arcs). Final dose calculation of IMPT was conducted by pencil beam(PB) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm, respectively, with adopted data model from the pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy system of IBA Protues Plus(IBA Group, Belgium); The data model originated from the linear accelerator of Varian Clinac iX (Varian Medical Systems, America) was used for RapidArc plans. Dosimetric parameters of DVH and dose distribution were used to compare the dose differences in targets and organs at risk (OARs) between these two treatment techniques. Results For targets, HIs of PB-IMPT and MC-IMPT were slightly better than that of RapidArc , but CI of IMPT was slightly lower than that of RapidArc; D1% of PB-IMPT was significantly better than those of MC-IMPT and RapidArc (Z=-2.805, -2.803, P<0.05). PB-IMPT and MC-IMPT achieved better protection than RapidArc on rectum V30(Z=-2.191, -1.988, P<0.05)and Dmean(Z=-2.599, -2.497, P<0.05), bladder V30(Z=-2.701, -2.701, P<0.05), V40(Z=-2.395, -2.395, P<0.05)and Dmean(Z=-2.701, -2.701, P<0.05). There was no significant difference between PB-IMPT and MC-IMPT plans for prostate cancer, except for the D1% [(73.86±67.34) Gy vs.(75.45±2.01) Gy] (RBE) and HI [(0.040±0.010) vs. (0.058±0.020)] of the target. Conclusions Both techniques can meet the clinical requirements, but IMPT showed significant dosimetric advantages compared with RapidArch by reducing the dose to OARs and improving the plan quality. Key words: Prostate cancer; IMPT; VMAT; RapidArc; PBS
IMPT和VMAT治疗前列腺癌的计划质量评价
目的探讨基于ptv的调强质子放疗(IMPT)和体积调节电弧治疗(VMAT)方案治疗前列腺癌的剂量学特点及方案质量,为临床应用提供参考。方法对10例前列腺癌患者进行回顾性研究。采用基于PTV的RayStation和Eclipse TPS分别设计了IMPT和RapidArc平面图。对于每种情况,IMPT平面图都是使用两个平行相对的横向油田的多场优化(MFO)技术生成的,而RapidArc平面图则是使用双弧技术(两个完整的弧)生成的。IMPT的最终剂量计算分别采用铅笔束(PB)和蒙特卡罗(MC)算法,采用IBA Protues Plus(IBA Group, Belgium)铅笔束扫描(PBS)质子治疗系统的数据模型;数据模型来源于Varian Clinac iX (Varian Medical Systems, America)的直线加速器,用于RapidArc计划。采用DVH剂量学参数和剂量分布比较两种治疗方法在靶区和危险器官(OARs)中的剂量差异。结果在靶点上,PB-IMPT和MC-IMPT的HIs略优于RapidArc,而IMPT的CI略低于RapidArc;PB-IMPT的D1%明显优于MC-IMPT和RapidArc (Z=-2.805, -2.803, P<0.05)。PB-IMPT和MC-IMPT对直肠V30(Z=-2.191, -1.988, P<0.05)和Dmean(Z=-2.599, -2.497, P<0.05)、膀胱V30(Z=-2.701, -2.701, P<0.05)、V40(Z=-2.395, -2.395, P<0.05)和Dmean(Z=-2.701, -2.701, P<0.05)的保护效果优于RapidArc。PB-IMPT与MC-IMPT方案治疗前列腺癌的差异无统计学意义,但靶细胞的D1%[(73.86±67.34)Gy vs(75.45±2.01)Gy] (RBE)和HI[(0.040±0.010)vs(0.058±0.020)]差异无统计学意义。结论两种技术均能满足临床要求,但IMPT与RapidArch相比具有明显的剂量学优势,可减少剂量至OARs,提高计划质量。关键词:前列腺癌;IMPT;VMAT;RapidArc;美国公共电视台
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
中华放射医学与防护杂志
中华放射医学与防护杂志 Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6377
期刊介绍:
×
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