English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background: To compare the dosimetric coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) and the dose delivered to the main Organs at Risk (OARs) in 5 and 7-field techniques of Intensity Modulated Radia%on Therapy (IMRT) in pa%ents with local prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Twelve pa%ents with local prostate cancer underwent 5 and 7-field IMRT planning. The delivery of IMRT was carried out using the sliding technique. The dose coverage for PTV was designated to ≥98% of the PTV covered by 95% of the prescribed dose. Dose conformity was evaluated by comparing the volume of nontarget %ssue receiving maximum, and average of the prescribed dose and the dose of 33%, 50%, and 66% of the volumes on both planning sets. For target, this evalua%on was made with comparing the Conformity Index (CI) and Inhomogeneity Index (HI). In addi%on, we compared the monitor units used for dose delivery in both planning techniques. Results: All the 5 and 7field IMRT plans differed slightly in the measured parameters, and none of them have sta%s%cally significant differences with each other except for the monitor units where significant differences were observed in favor of the 5field IMRT plans (p=0.000). In all of the 5-field IMRT plans the mean dose delivered to OARs were very similar or less than that of the 7-field plans. Conclusion: In comparison to the 7-field technique, the 5-field IMRT technique has resulted in improved IMRT dose conformity, homogeneity, and lesser MUs used for radia%on therapy. However, this difference was not

Radiation treatment planning for prostate cancer: A new dosimetric comparison of five and seven fields IMRT plans