Original Articles

The calculation and comparison of integral dose for the rectum, bladder, right and left femur heads in two methods of prostate cancer radiotherapy: S.A.S IMRT vs. 3D CRT

Abstract

The aim of radiation therapy treatment planning is to achieve an optimal balance between delivering a high dose to target volume and a low dose to healthy tissues. In order to refrain any complications resulting from the dose to the surrounding normal organs, the role of treatment plan has been critically evaluated in term of how large the volume or mass of normal tissues exposed in the radiation. The integral dose, hence, is one of the important guidance for predicting the radiation effects and choosing the treatment plan. The goal of this study is to compare and investigate the integral doses in conformal 3D vs. IMRT plan. Dosimetric data from five patients of prostate cancer, treated by simultaneous integrated boost IMRT and 3D CRT were evaluated in this prospective study. Target volume and organs at risk were contoured using M.I.R.S Treatment Planning System (Module Integrated Radiotherapy System version 5.0.00). A dose of 80 Gy to the PTV1, 57 Gy to RTV2 and 62 Gy to the PTV3 and 70Gy in 3D CRT and for P V, was prescribed. For each patient IMRT plans using S.A.S (dynamic Step and Shoot) and 3D CRT with 6, 10 and 18MV energies, were done. To calculate the ID to the normal healthy tissue all the target volumes were achieved. The Integral Dose was calculated as the mean- dose times the volume of the structure. A total of thirty IMRT and 3D CRT plans were performed for evaluation. The mean ID received by rectum for 3D CRT was almost 1.04% greater than IMRT while in bladder mean value of ID for IMRT is also bigger than 3D CRT approximately about 1.04%. In RFH and LFH the mean values of ID for 3D CRT were almost 1.05% and 1.06% greater than IMRT, respectively. Due to the three PTVs in IMRT the integral dose in target volume has the biggest value comparing with 3D CRT, considerably.

Aus G, Abbou CC, Bolla M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2005; 48:546–51.

P C WILLIAMS, Review article, IMRT: delivery techniques and qual- ity assurance, The British Journal of Radiology, 76 (2003), 766–776.

Hidefumi Aoyama, David Clark Westerly, Integral Radiation Dose To Normal Structures With Conformal External Beam Radiation, Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., Vol. 64, No. 3, pp. 962–967, 2006.

Hall EJ, Wuu CS. Radiation-induced second cancers: The impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 56:83– 88.

K. S. Jothybaso, Amit Bahal, Static vs., dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy: profile of integral dose in carcinoma of the nasopharynx, journal of medical physic, vol. 34, No. 2,2009,66,72[ 13 jothy baso].

D’Souza WD, Rosen II. Nontumor integral dose variation in conven- tional radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys 2003; 30:2065–2071.

Hall EJ, Wuu CS. Radiation-induced second cancers: The impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 56:83– 88.

Vanhavere F, Huyskens D, Struelens L. Peripheral neutron and gam- ma doses in radiotherapy with an 18 MV linear accelerator. Radiat Prot Dosim 2004; 110:607– 612.

Podgorsak EB, Rawlinson JA, Johns HE. X-ray depth doses for linear accelerators in the energy range from 10 to 32 MeV. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1975; 123:182–191.

Pirzkall A, Carol MP, Pickett B, et al. The effect of beam energy and number of fields on photon-based IMRT for deep-seated targets. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 53:434–442.

Chengyu Shi, Jose Penagaricano, Comparison of IMRT treatments plan between linac and helical tomotherapy based on integral dose and inhomogeneity index, medical dosimetry, vol. 33, No.3, 2008, PP. 215- 221.

Bland MJ, Altman DJ, Statistical method for assessment agreement between two method of clinical measurements, Lancet, 1986; 1: 307-10.

Pirzkall A. Carol M, Comparison of intensity modulated radiothera- py whit conventional conformal radiotherapy for complex shape tumor, Int J radiant, Oncol boil phys, 2007: 67: 1135-44.

Suresh Moorthy, M.Phil,. Narayana Murthy, Saroj Kumar Das Ma- jumdar, MD, DNB, Hamdy El Hateer, R. Mohan, V. Ramanathan, B.Sc, Dosimetric Characteristics of IMRT versus 3DCRT for Intact Breast Ir- radiation with Simultaneous Integrated Boost, Austral - Asian Journal of Cancer ISSN-0972-2556, Vol. 11, No. 3, July 2012.

Files
IssueVol 5 No 4 (2013) QRcode
SectionOriginal Articles
Keywords
Integral dose IMRT 3D CRT radiotherapy SIB-IMRT

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Shirani Tak Abi K, Nedaie HA, Hassani H, Naderi M, Babaie M, Samei M, Andalib B, Sakhaei S, Banaee N. The calculation and comparison of integral dose for the rectum, bladder, right and left femur heads in two methods of prostate cancer radiotherapy: S.A.S IMRT vs. 3D CRT. Basic Clin Cancer Res. 2014;5(4):10-18.