SU-GG-T-580: Parameterization of Dose Volume Histograms (DVHs) of Planning Target Volume (PTV) Among Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (6Part25) ◽  
pp. 3320-3321
Author(s):  
T Liu ◽  
C Yang ◽  
J Purdy
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Planning Target Volume ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
Dose Volume Histograms ◽  
Dose Volume

scholarly journals Dosimetric Comparison: Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Vs. 3D Conformal Radiotherapy In Prostate Cancer Radical Treatment

2019 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Slavica Maric ◽  
Snezana Lukic ◽  
Milan Mijailovic ◽  
Ljiljana Tadic Latinovic ◽  
Milan Zigic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Planning Target Volume ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Absorbed Dose ◽  
Conformal Radiotherapy ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Radical Treatment ◽  
3D Conformal Radiotherapy

Abstract 3D - Conformal Radiotherapy (3DCRT) for decades was a standard technique in the prostate cancer radical radiotherapy treatment. Technological advances and implementation of an innovative radiotherapy technique - Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), enable even more precise treatment of the prostate cancer patients. Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) is a technological advancement in Conformal Radiotherapy which allows superior conformity and homogeneity of the absorbed dose in planning target volume with maximal sparing organs of risk. This technique gives us possibility to escalate the radiotherapy dose, prerequisite for the adequate local tumor control. Evaluation of dosimetric parameters 3DCRT vs. IMRT: the homogeneity index, the conformity index, parameters of absorbed dose in planning target volume, dose volume constraints for organs of risk shows that IMRT is an optimal technique in the prostate cancer radical treatment.

Dosimetric comparison between the prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using the planning target volume (PTV) dose–volume factor

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C. L. Chow ◽  
Runqing Jiang ◽  
Alexander Kiciak ◽  
Daniel Markel
Keyword(s):  
Planning Target Volume ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
Conformity Index ◽  
Volume Factor ◽  
Dose Volume Histograms ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Dose Volume ◽  
Arc Therapy

AbstractBackgroundWe demonstrated that our proposed planning target volume (PTV) dose–volume factor (PDVF) can be used to evaluate the PTV dose coverage between the intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans based on 90 prostate patients.PurposePDVF were determined from the prostate IMRT and VMAT plans to compare their variation of PTV dose coverage. Comparisons of the PDVF with other plan evaluation parameters such as D5%, D95%, D99%, Dmean, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI) and prostate tumour control probability (TCP) were carried out.Methods and materialsProstate IMRT and VMAT plans using the 6 MV photon beams were created from 40 and 50 patients, respectively. Dosimetric indices (CI, HI and GI), dose–volume points (D5%, D95%, D99% and Dmean) and prostate TCP were calculated according to the PTV dose–volume histograms (DVHs) of the plans. All PTV DVH curves were fitted using the Gaussian error function (GEF) model. The PDVF were calculated based on the GEF parameters.ResultsFrom the PTV DVHs of the prostate IMRT and VMAT plans, the average D99% of the PTV for IMRT and VMAT were 74·1 and 74·5 Gy, respectively. The average prostate TCP were 0·956 and 0·958 for the IMRT and VMAT plans, respectively. The average PDVF of the IMRT and VMAT plans were 0·970 and 0·983, respectively. Although both the IMRT and VMAT plans showed very similar prostate TCP, the dosimetric and radiobiological results of the VMAT technique were slightly better than IMRT.ConclusionThe calculated PDVF for the prostate IMRT and VMAT plans agreed well with other dosimetric and radiobiological parameters in this study. PDVF was verified as an alternative of evaluation parameter in the quality assurance of prostate treatment planning.

A comparison of proton and photon radiotherapy in reducing cardiac exposure for patients receiving radiation therapy for distal and esophagogastric junction cancer.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 167-167
Author(s):  
Ted Chen-Tai Ling ◽  
Jerry Monroe Slater ◽  
Rachel Mifflin ◽  
Prashanth Nookala ◽  
Roger Grove ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Esophagogastric Junction ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
Dose Distributions ◽  
Dose Volume Histograms ◽  
Dose Volume ◽  
Partial Volumes ◽  
Treatment Plans ◽  
Adequate Coverage

167 Background: Recent studies indicate that radiation exposure to heart may have a greater impact on perioperative cardiac morbidities than do other clinical factors. The purpose of this study is to investigate dose distributions of proton and photon treatment plans in patients (pts) with distal and esophagogastric junction (GEJ) carcinoma, focusing specifically on dose reduction to cardiac structures. Methods: Ten pts between 2010 and 2013 were included in this study. Three separate plans were generated for each patient: 3D proton plan, 3D photon plan, and Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) photon plan. The clinical target volume (CTV) consisted of the pre-operative extent of tumor plus a 10mm manual expansion in all directions. The planning target volume (PTV) was generated by a further expansion on the CTV ranging from 10-15mm. A dose of 50.4Gy given in 28 fractions was delivered to the PTV. All plans were optimized to allow 90% isodose coverage of at least 95% of the PTV. Dose-volume histograms were calculated and analyzed in order to compare plans between the three modalities. ANOVA and two-tailed paired t-tests were performed for all data parameters. Results: The 3D proton plans showed decreased dose to partial volumes of the entire heart, arteries, valves, atria, and ventricles in comparison to both the IMRT and 3D photon plans (see Table). The IMRT plans showed decreased dose delivered to the LAD artery, pericardium, and atria in comparison to the 3D photon plans (see Table). Conclusions: For pts receiving radiation therapy for distal esophageal and GEJ cancer, proton plans are technically feasible with adequate coverage while resulting in lower dose to cardiac structures. This may result in decreased cardiac toxicity and less complications in a multimodality setting. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document