File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: RapidArc radiotherapy planning for prostate cancer: Single-arc and double-arc techniques vs. intensity-modulated radiotherapy

TitleRapidArc radiotherapy planning for prostate cancer: Single-arc and double-arc techniques vs. intensity-modulated radiotherapy
Authors
Issue Date2012
PublisherElsevier Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/meddos
Citation
Medical Dosimetry, 2012, v. 37 n. 1, p. 87-91 How to Cite?
AbstractRapidArc is a novel technique using arc radiotherapy aiming to achieve intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)-quality radiotherapy plans with shorter treatment time. This study compared the dosimetric quality and treatment efficiency of single-arc (SA) vs. double-arc (DA) and IMRT in the treatment of prostate cancer. Fourteen patients were included in the analysis. The planning target volume (PTV), which contained the prostate gland and proximal seminal vesicles, received 76 Gy in 38 fractions. Seven-field IMRT, SA, and DA plans were generated for each patient. Dosimetric quality in terms of the minimum PTV dose, PTV hotspot, inhomogeneity, and conformity index; and sparing of rectum, bladder, and femoral heads as measured by V70, V-40, and V20 (% of volume receiving >70 Gy, 40 Gy, and 20 Gy, respectively), treatment efficiency as assessed by monitor units (MU) and treatment time were compared. All plan objectives were met satisfactorily by all techniques. DA achieved the best dosimetric quality with the highest minimum PTV dose, lowest hotspot, and the best homogeneity and conformity. It was also more efficient than IMRT. SA achieved the highest treatment efficiency with the lowest MU and shortest treatment time. The mean treatment time for a 2-Gy fraction was 4.80 min, 2.78 min, and 1.30 min for IMRT, DA, and SA, respectively. However, SA also resulted in the highest rectal dose. DA could improve target volume coverage and reduce treatment time and MU while maintaining equivalent normal tissue sparing when compared with IMRT. SA achieved the greatest treatment efficiency but with the highest rectal dose, which was nonetheless within tolerable limits. For busy units with high patient throughput, SA could be an acceptable option. © 2012 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/180452
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.007
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.532
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSze, HCKen_US
dc.contributor.authorLee, MCHen_US
dc.contributor.authorHung, WMen_US
dc.contributor.authorYau, TKen_US
dc.contributor.authorLee, AWMen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-01-28T01:38:14Z-
dc.date.available2013-01-28T01:38:14Z-
dc.date.issued2012en_US
dc.identifier.citationMedical Dosimetry, 2012, v. 37 n. 1, p. 87-91en_US
dc.identifier.issn0958-3947en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/180452-
dc.description.abstractRapidArc is a novel technique using arc radiotherapy aiming to achieve intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)-quality radiotherapy plans with shorter treatment time. This study compared the dosimetric quality and treatment efficiency of single-arc (SA) vs. double-arc (DA) and IMRT in the treatment of prostate cancer. Fourteen patients were included in the analysis. The planning target volume (PTV), which contained the prostate gland and proximal seminal vesicles, received 76 Gy in 38 fractions. Seven-field IMRT, SA, and DA plans were generated for each patient. Dosimetric quality in terms of the minimum PTV dose, PTV hotspot, inhomogeneity, and conformity index; and sparing of rectum, bladder, and femoral heads as measured by V70, V-40, and V20 (% of volume receiving >70 Gy, 40 Gy, and 20 Gy, respectively), treatment efficiency as assessed by monitor units (MU) and treatment time were compared. All plan objectives were met satisfactorily by all techniques. DA achieved the best dosimetric quality with the highest minimum PTV dose, lowest hotspot, and the best homogeneity and conformity. It was also more efficient than IMRT. SA achieved the highest treatment efficiency with the lowest MU and shortest treatment time. The mean treatment time for a 2-Gy fraction was 4.80 min, 2.78 min, and 1.30 min for IMRT, DA, and SA, respectively. However, SA also resulted in the highest rectal dose. DA could improve target volume coverage and reduce treatment time and MU while maintaining equivalent normal tissue sparing when compared with IMRT. SA achieved the greatest treatment efficiency but with the highest rectal dose, which was nonetheless within tolerable limits. For busy units with high patient throughput, SA could be an acceptable option. © 2012 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherElsevier Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/meddosen_US
dc.relation.ispartofMedical Dosimetryen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshMaleen_US
dc.subject.meshProstatic Neoplasms - Radiotherapyen_US
dc.subject.meshRadiometry - Methodsen_US
dc.subject.meshRadiotherapy Dosageen_US
dc.subject.meshRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - Methodsen_US
dc.subject.meshRadiotherapy, Conformal - Methodsen_US
dc.subject.meshReproducibility Of Resultsen_US
dc.subject.meshSensitivity And Specificityen_US
dc.subject.meshSoftwareen_US
dc.titleRapidArc radiotherapy planning for prostate cancer: Single-arc and double-arc techniques vs. intensity-modulated radiotherapyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailSze, HCK: henrysze@graduate.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authoritySze, HCK=rp01697en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.meddos.2011.01.005en_US
dc.identifier.pmid21925863-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84856787051en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros219066-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-84856787051&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume37en_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.spage87en_US
dc.identifier.epage91en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000301035000017-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSze, HCK=23490726900en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLee, MCH=16735227900en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridHung, WM=7201803700en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridYau, TK=7006540678en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLee, AWM=17035384900en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats