Progress in Medical Physics (한국의학물리학회지:의학물리)

Korean Society of Medical Physics (한국의학물리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of Treatment Plan Quality between Magnetic Resonance-Guided Radiotherapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy for Prostate Cancer

  • Chang Heon Choi (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Jin Ho Kim (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Jaeman Son (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Jong Min Park (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Jung-in Kim (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • Received : 2022.11.16
  • Accepted : 2022.12.13
  • Published : 2022.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study evaluated the quality of plans based on magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) tri-Co-60, linac, and conventional linac-based volumetric modulated arc therapy (linac-VMAT) for prostate cancer. Methods: Twenty patients suffering from prostate cancer with intermediate risk who were treated by MAT were selected. Additional treatment plans (primary and boost plans) were generated based on MRgRT-tri-Co-60 and MRgRT-linac. The planning target volume (PTV) of MRgRT-based plans was created by adding a 3 mm margin from the clinical target volume (CTV) due to high soft-tissue contrast and real-time motion imaging. On the other hand, the PTV of conventional linac was generated based on a 1 cm margin from CTV. The targets of primary and boost plans were prostate plus seminal vesicle and prostate only, respectively. All plans were normalized to cover 95% of the target volume by 100% of the prescribed dose. Dosimetric characteristics were evaluated for each of the primary, boost, and sum plans. Results: For target coverage and conformity, the three plans showed similar results. In the sum plans, the average value of V65Gy of the rectum of MRgRT-linac (2.62%±2.21%) was smaller than those of MRgRT tri-Co-60 (9.04%±3.01%) and linac-VMAT (9.73%±7.14%) (P<0.001). In the case of bladder, the average value of V65Gy of MRgRT-linac was also smaller. Conclusions: In terms of organs at risk sparing, MRgRT-linac shows the best value while maintaining comparable target coverage among the three plans.

Keywords

References

  1. Aizer AA, Yu JB, Colberg JW, McKeon AM, Decker RH, Peschel RE. Radical prostatectomy vs. intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the management of localized prostate adenocarcinoma. Radiother Oncol. 2009;93:185-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2009.09.001
  2. Choi CH, Park SY, Kim JI, Kim JH, Kim K, Carlson J, et al. Quality of tri-Co-60 MR-IGRT treatment plans in comparison with VMAT treatment plans for spine SABR. Br J Radiol. 2017;90:20160652.
  3. Clark G, Plants B, Mallah J, Raja P, Farinash L, Harmon M, et al. Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to brain metastasis via image guided, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IG-IMRT): dosimetric and early clinical experience. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2008;72:S241.
  4. David R, O'Callaghan M. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes measures in patients with localised prostate cancer following external beam radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol. 2022;29(S1):105-106.
  5. de Meric de Bellefon M, Lemanski C, Castan F, Samalin E, Mazard T, Lenglet A, et al. Long-term follow-up experience in anal canal cancer treated with Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy: clinical outcomes, patterns of relapse and predictors of failure. Radiother Oncol. 2020;144:141-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2019.11.016
  6. Li X, Quan EM, Li Y, Pan X, Zhou Y, Wang X, et al. A fully automated method for CT-on-rails-guided online adaptive planning for prostate cancer intensity modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;86:835-841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.04.014
  7. Mutic S, Dempsey JF. The ViewRay system: magnetic resonance-guided and controlled radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2014;24:196-199.
  8. Park JM, Wu HG, Kim HJ, Choi CH, Kim JI. Comparison of treatment plans between IMRT with MR-linac and VMAT for lung SABR. Radiat Oncol. 2019;14:105.
  9. Choi CH, Kim JH, Kim JI, Park JM. Comparison of treatment plan quality among MRI-based IMRT with a linac, MRI-based IMRT with tri-Co-60 sources, and VMAT for spine SABR. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0220039.
  10. Park JM, Park SY, Kim JI, Kang HC, Choi CH. A comparison of treatment plan quality between Tri-Co-60 intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for cervical cancer. Phys Med. 2017;40:11-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.06.018
  11. Zhang P, Happersett L, Hunt M, Jackson A, Zelefsky M, Mageras G. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: planning and evaluation for prostate cancer cases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:1456-1462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.03.033
  12. Shaw E, Kline R, Gillin M, Souhami L, Hirschfeld A, Dinapoli R, et al. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group: radiosurgery quality assurance guidelines. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;27:1231-1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(93)90548-A
  13. Paddick I, Lippitz B. A simple dose gradient measurement tool to complement the conformity index. J Neurosurg. 2006;105:194-201. https://doi.org/10.3171/sup.2006.105.7.194
  14. Kim KH, Chung JB, Suh TS, Kang SW, Kang SH, Eom KY, et al. Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison in different dose calculation grid sizes between Acuros XB and anisotropic analytical algorithm for prostate VMAT. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0207232.
  15. Patel PR, Yoo S, Broadwater G, Marks LB, Miles EF, D'Amico TA, et al. Effect of increasing experience on dosimetric and clinical outcomes in the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma with intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83:362-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.11.057