Comparison of VMAT and D-IMRT Planning Techniques in Radiotherapy of Patients with Prostate Cancer

Creative Commons License

Bilek Y., Korcum Şahin A. F., Koca T., Tunçel N.

Türkiye Klinikleri Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi, cilt.39, sa.3, ss.263-270, 2019 (Scopus) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 39 Sayı: 3
  • Basım Tarihi: 2019
  • Dergi Adı: Türkiye Klinikleri Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Scopus, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.263-270
  • Akdeniz Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this study is to compare dosimetric values of dynamic intensity modulated

radiation therapy (dIMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment techniques in the treatment

of prostate cancer radiotherapy. Material and Methods: Treatment plans were designed for 10 high-risk

prostate cancer patient with Linac based 9-fields D-IMRT and double arc VMAT techniques using CMS

Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS). Two planning techniques; were compared to homogeneity index

(HI) and conformity index (CI) values as well as the dose coverage of planning target volume (PTV) structures.

Critical organs were assessed V50, V60, V65, V70 for the rectum, V65, V70 for the bladder and V40

for the femoral heads. The treatment time, segment number and monitor unit (MU) values of the plans obtained

with the two techniques were compared. V37 was also evaluated as integral dose of the patients. All

obtained data were statistically evaluated by Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results: With the D-IMRT and

VMAT techniques, similar dose coverage were obtained for target volumes. HI and CI values calculated for

PTV 74 were found to be the similar in both techniques. With both planning techniques, all critical organs

could be kept below the dose limits. In general, in terms of organs at risk doses, close results were obtained

from both techniques. However, there was a significant difference between the two techniques in terms of

V70 values for rectum. A significant difference was also found between the two techniques in terms of integral

dose. Although the segment and MU numbers obtained from the plans generated by the VMAT technique

were higher than the plans generated by the D-IMRT technique, the treatment time was found shorter.

Conclusion: Similar dosimetric results were obtained from 9-fields D-IMRT and VMAT techniques used in

the treatment of prostate cancer radiotherapy in terms of PTV dose coverage and critical organ protection.

The VMAT technique has an advantage over the D-IMRT technique only in terms of treatment time.