Evaluation of plan quality for IMPT and VMAT in the treatment of patients with prostate cancer
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-5098.2020.01.003
- VernacularTitle: 前列腺癌质子调强与光子容积旋转调强放疗计划质量评估
- Author:
Tao YANG
1
;
Shouping XU
1
;
Chuanbin XIE
1
;
Xuan GONG
1
;
Wei XU
1
;
Baolin QU
1
;
Zishen WANG
2
;
Chunfeng FANG
2
;
Lin CAO
2
Author Information
1. Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
2. Hebei Yizhou Cancer Hospital, Zhuozhou 072750, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Prostate cancer;
IMPT;
VMAT;
RapidArc;
PBS
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiological Medicine and Protection
2020;40(1):19-25
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
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.
