A treatment planning study comparing tomotherapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy, Sliding Window and proton therapy for low-risk prostate carcinoma.
BACKGROUND
Comparing radiation treatment plans to ascertain the optimal intensity-modulated radiation technique for low-risk prostate cancer.


METHODS
Treatment plans for 20 randomly selected patients were generated using the same dose objectives. A dosimetric comparison was performed between various intensity-modulated techniques, including protons. All treatment plans provided conventional treatment with 79.2Gy. Dosimetric indices for the target volume and organs at risk (OAR), including homogeneity index and four conformity indices were analyzed.


RESULTS
No statistically significant differences between techniques were observed for homogeneity values. Dose distributions showed significant differences at low-to-medium doses. At doses above 50Gy all techniques revealed a steep dose gradient outside the planning target volume (PTV). Protons demonstrated superior rectum sparing at low-to-higher doses (V10-V70, P < .05) and bladder sparing at low-to-medium doses (V10-V30, P < .05). Helical tomotherapy (HT) provided superior rectum sparing compared to Sliding Window (SW) and Rapid Arc (RA) (V10-V70, P < .05). SW displayed superior bladder sparing compared to HT and RA (V10-V50, P < .05). Protons generated significantly higher femoral heads exposure and HT had superior sparing of those.


CONCLUSIONS
All techniques are able to provide a homogeneous and highly conformal dose distribution. Protons demonstrated superior sparing of the rectum and bladder at a wide dose spectrum. The radiation technique itself as well as treatment planning algorithms result in different OAR sparing between HT, SW and RA, with superior rectum sparing by HT and superior bladder sparing by SW. Radiation plans can be further optimized by individual modification of dose objectives dependent on treatment plan strategy.
Department of Radiotherapy and Radiooncology, University Hospital of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Gebäude A1, 48149, Muenster, Germany. Sergiu.Scobioala@ukmuenster.de.
Sergiu
S
Scobioala
Department of Radiotherapy and Radiooncology, University Hospital of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Gebäude A1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Christopher
C
Kittel
Department of Radiotherapy and Radiooncology, University Hospital of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Gebäude A1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Nicolas
N
Wissmann
Department of Radiotherapy and Radiooncology, University Hospital of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Gebäude A1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Uwe
U
Haverkamp
Department of Radiotherapy and Radiooncology, University Hospital of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Gebäude A1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Mohammed
M
Channaoui
Department of Radiotherapy and Radiooncology, University Hospital of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Gebäude A1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Omar
O
Habibeh
Department of Radiotherapy and Radiooncology, University Hospital of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Gebäude A1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Khaled
K
Elsayad
Department of Radiotherapy and Radiooncology, University Hospital of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Gebäude A1, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Hans Theodor
HT
Eich
Dosimetric indices; Helical tomotherapy; Prostate; Proton treatment; Sliding Window; Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy
Med Phys. 2010 Mar;37(3):1350-9
20384272
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Nov 1;66(3):654-62
17011444
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Aug 1;53(5):1097-105
12128107
Radiother Oncol. 2008 Jul;88(1):34-45
18395811
Cancer Radiother. 2014 Oct;18(5-6):369-78
25199865
Cancer. 2012 Aug 1;118(15):3681-90
22170628
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 Feb 1;85(2):549-54
22677369
Med Dosim. 2011 Autumn;36(3):264-71
20634054
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Feb 1;82(2):877-82
21300474
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Mar 15;79(4):1013-21
20447774
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 May 1;56(1):83-8
12694826
JAMA. 2005 Sep 14;294(10):1233-9
16160131
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995 Jan 1;31(1):157-63
7995747
Strahlenther Onkol. 2014 Oct;190(11):1053-9
24972890
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Mar 1;70(3):744-51
17904306
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996 Feb 1;34(3):555-64
8621278
Radiother Oncol. 2009 Nov;93(2):226-33
19765846
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Sep 1;81(1):284-96
21236598
Cancer Radiother. 2014 Oct;18(5-6):501-8
25192625
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Mar 1;88(3):715-22
24521685
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Nov 15;72(4):996-1001
18455326
JAMA. 2012 Apr 18;307(15):1611-20
22511689
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Jan 1;76(1):123-9
19386426
J Med Phys. 2013 Oct;38(4):165-72
24672150
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 May 1;65(1):1-7
16618572
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Aug 1;80(5):1589-600
21167651
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Jun 1;47(3):639-48
10837946
Med Dosim. 2011 Winter;36(4):365-72
21377863
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 Jan 1;55(1):194-203
12504054
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Feb 1;37(3):731-6
9112473
Radiother Oncol. 2004 Jun;71(3):327-32
15172149
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Jul 15;50(4):1021-31
11429230
Radiother Oncol. 2011 Jan;98(1):74-80
21176983
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011 Aug 1;80(5):1550-8
21543164
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Nov 15;69(4):1084-9
17606331
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Sep 1;69(1):240-50
17707278
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl):S116-22
20171505
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Mar 1;73(3):685-91
18718725