Open AccessProstate volumetric‐modulated arc therapy: dosimetry and radiobiological model variation between the single‐arc and double‐arc technique
Author(s) -
Chow James C.L.,
Jiang Runqing
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
journal of applied clinical medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.83
H-Index - 48
ISSN - 1526-9914
DOI - 10.1120/jacmp.v14i3.4053
Subject(s) - dosimetry , prostate , isocenter , nuclear medicine , rectum , medicine , arc (geometry) , monitor unit , radiation treatment planning , radiation therapy , radiology , surgery , mathematics , cancer , imaging phantom , geometry
This study investigates the dosimetry and radiobiological model variation when a second photon arc was added to prostate volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using the single‐arc technique. Dosimetry and radiobiological model comparison between the single‐arc and double‐arc prostate VMAT plans were performed on five patients with prostate volumes ranging from 29 − 68.1 c m3 . The prescription dose was 78 Gy/39 fractions and the photon beam energy was 6 MV. Dose‐volume histogram, mean and maximum dose of targets (planning and clinical target volume) and normal tissues (rectum, bladder and femoral heads), dose‐volume criteria in the treatment plan (D99 %of PTV;D 30 % , D 50 % , V 17 G yandV 35 G yof rectum and bladder;D 5 %of femoral heads), and dose profiles along the vertical and horizontal axis crossing the isocenter were determined using the single‐arc and double‐arc VMAT technique. For comparison, the monitor unit based on the RapidArc delivery method, prostate tumor control probability (TCP), and rectal normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) based on the Lyman‐Burman‐Kutcher algorithm were calculated. It was found that though the double‐arc technique required almost double the treatment time than the single‐arc, the double‐arc plan provided a better rectal and bladder dose‐volume criteria by shifting the delivered dose in the patient from the anterior–posterior direction to the lateral. As the femoral head was less radiosensitive than the rectum and bladder, the double‐arc technique resulted in a prostate VMAT plan with better prostate coverage and rectal dose‐volume criteria compared to the single‐arc. The prostate TCP of the double‐arc plan was found slightly increased (0.16%) compared to the single‐arc. Therefore, when the rectal dose‐volume criteria are very difficult to achieve in a single‐arc prostate VMAT plan, it is worthwhile to consider the double‐arc technique. PACS number: 87.55.D‐, 87.55.dk, 87.55.K‐, 87.55.Qr