AbstractPurpose: To evaluate composite coplanar and non-coplanar three-dimensional conformal techniques (3D-CRT) for external-beam prostate radiotherapy using a low-energy (6 MV) photon beam.Methods and Materials: For treatment-planning purposes, three different planning target volumes (PTV) were defined for ten patients with prostate cancer and as follows: PTV1 (pelvis), PTV2 (prostate + seminal vesicles + 1 cm margin) and PTV3 (prostate + 1 cm margin). Conformal techniques of 2, 3, 4, 5 (coplanar) and 6 (non-coplanar) field techniques have been considered and combined to produce five different plan combinations (i.e. techniques A, B, C, D and E). Treatment plans were generated with a prescription dose of 75 Gy to PTV3, 65 Gy to PTV2 and 45 Gy to PTV1 and were assessed on the basis of 3D dose distributions and dose-volume histograms (DVHs). Normal tissue-dose constraints for the relevant organs at risk (OARs), that is, rectum, bladder and femoral heads, were also considered.Results: Findings show that all five treatment-plan combinations result in adequate PTV coverage and acceptable OAR irradiated volumes. The greatest rectal spacing in the high-dose region is achieved by technique C; all techniques achieve this, except for technique A, and give approximately the same fraction of volume (of rectum) that receives a dose of 50 Gy (V50) and 60 Gy (V60). When considering the bladder, techniques B, D and E give the best bladder sparing with small absolute differences, whereas technique A results in the lowest dose for femoral heads. Technique E appears to give the best compromise for all three considered OARs, provided the PTV is adequately covered.Conclusions: Even though the optimum photon-beam energy for conformal prostate radiotherapy is greater than 10 MV, our study shows that a good sparing of OAR can be achieved even with a lower-energy beam (6 MV) and the appropriate plan combination and that the dose to prostate can be as high as 75 Gy.
VMAT for prostate cancer with 6‑MV and 10‑MV photons: Impact of beam energy on treatment plan quality and model‑based secondary cancer risk estimates
