scholarly journals Clinical Differences Among Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy, Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, and 3D- Conformal Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: A Brief Review Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Kazi T Afrin ◽  
Salahuddin Ahmad ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Conformal Radiation Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
3D Conformal Radiation Therapy ◽  
Review Study

Dosimetric effects of weight loss or gain during volumetric modulated arc therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 251-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew L. Pair ◽  
Weiliang Du ◽  
Hector D. Rojas ◽  
James E. Kanke ◽  
Sean E. McGuire ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Weight Loss ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Arc Therapy

scholarly journals Adaptive Imaging Versus Periodic Surveillance for Intrafraction Motion Management During Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 153303381984448
Author(s):  
Xiangyu Ma ◽  
Huagang Yan ◽  
Ravinder Nath ◽  
Zhe Chen ◽  
Haiyun Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Additional Patient ◽  
Automatic Correction ◽  
Adaptive Imaging ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Arc Therapy ◽  
The Mean

Objective: To evaluate the benefits of adaptive imaging with automatic correction compared to periodic surveillance strategies with either manual or automatic correction. Methods: Using Calypso trajectories from 54 patients with prostate cancer at 2 institutions, we simulated 5-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy and dual-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy with periodic imaging at various frequencies and with continuous adaptive imaging, respectively. With manual/automatic correction, we assumed there was a 30/1 second delay after imaging to determine and apply couch shift. For adaptive imaging, real-time “dose-free” cine-MV images during beam delivery are used in conjunction with online-updated motion pattern information to estimate 3D displacement. Simultaneous MV-kV imaging is only used to confirm the estimated overthreshold motion and calculate couch shift, hence very low additional patient dose from kV imaging. Results: Without intrafraction intervention, the prostates could on average have moved out of a 3-mm margin for ∼20% of the beam-on time after setup imaging in current clinical situation. If the time interval from the setup imaging to beam-on can be reduced to only 30 seconds, the mean over-3 mm percentage can be reduced to ∼7%. For intensity-modulated radiation therapy simulation, with manual correction, 110 and 70 seconds imaging periods both reduced the mean over-3 mm time to ∼4%. Automatic correction could give another 1% to 2% improvement. However, with either manual or automatic correction, the maximum patient-specific over-3 mm time was still relatively high (from 6.4% to 12.6%) and those patients are actually clinically most important. In contrast, adaptive imaging with automatic intervention significantly reduced the mean percentage to 0.6% and the maximum to 2.7% and averagely only ∼1 kV image and ∼1 couch shift were needed per fraction. The results of volumetric-modulated arc therapy simulation show a similar trend to that of intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Conclusions: Adaptive continuous monitoring with automatic motion compensation is more beneficial than periodic imaging surveillance at similar or even less imaging dose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document