Feasibility of the partial-single arc technique in RapidArc planning for prostate cancer treatment.
- Author:
Suresh RANA
1
;
Chihyao CHENG
Author Information
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Femur Head; radiation effects; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Staging; Organs at Risk; radiation effects; Penis; radiation effects; Prostatic Neoplasms; pathology; radiotherapy; Radiometry; methods; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated; methods; Rectum; radiation effects; Urinary Bladder; radiation effects
- From:Chinese Journal of Cancer 2013;32(10):546-552
- CountryChina
- Language:English
- Abstract: The volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique, in the form of RapidArc, is widely used to treat prostate cancer. The full-single arc (f-SA) technique in RapidArc planning for prostate cancer treatment provides efficient treatment, but it also delivers a higher radiation dose to the rectum. This study aimed to compare the dosimetric results from the new partial-single arc (p-SA) technique with those from the f-SA technique in RapidArc planning for prostate cancer treatment. In this study, 10 patients with low-risk prostate cancer were selected. For each patient, two sets of RapidArc plans (f-SA and p-SA) were created in the Eclipse treatment planning system. The f-SA plan was created using one full arc, and the p-SA plan was created using planning parameters identical to those of the f-SA plan but with anterior and posterior avoidance sectors. Various dosimetric parameters of the f-SA and p-SA plans were evaluated and compared for the same target coverage and identical plan optimization parameters. The f-SA and p-SA plans showed an average difference of ±1% for the doses to the planning target volume (PTV), and there were no clear differences in dose homogeneity or plan conformity. In comparison to the f-SA technique, the p-SA technique reduced the doses to the rectum by approximately 6.1% to 21.2%, to the bladder by approximately 10.3% to 29.5%, and to the penile bulb by approximately 2.2%. In contrast, the dose to the femoral heads, the integral dose, and the number of monitor units were higher in the p-SA plans by approximately 34.4%, 7.7%, and 9.2%, respectively. In conclusion, it is feasible to use the p-SA technique for RapidArc planning for prostate cancer treatment. For the same PTV coverage and identical plan optimization parameters, the p-SA technique is better in sparing the rectum and bladder without compromising plan conformity or target homogeneity when compared to the f-SA technique.
