Browse > Article

Comparison of Beam Transfer Methods between Tomo Therapy and Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy  

Park, Jung Min (Department of Radiological Technology, Dongnam Health University)
Ko, Eun Seo (Department of Radiological Technology, Dongnam Health University)
Lee, Jin Hee (Department of Radiological Technology, Dongnam Health University)
Kim, Jin Won (Department of Radiological Technology, Dongnam Health University)
Yang, Jin Ho (Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center)
Kwon, Kyung Tae (Department of Radiological Technology, Dongnam Health University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy / v.31, no.2, 2019 , pp. 75-81 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: Tomo therapy and Proton therapy treatment plans for the treatment of prostate cancer patients were established, and the characteristics of dose distribution according to beam delivery method using Tomo therapy IMRT method and Proton therapy PBS method to compare and analyze the treatment effect were sought. Materials and Methods: Tomo IMRT treatment plan and Proton PBS treatment plan were established using the Hi.art planning station 5.1.1.6 of Tomo therapy and Eclipse 13.7 of VARIAN for three prostate cancer patients who were treated with radiotherapy only for radical purposes without surgery. For the evaluation of two treatment plans, the average dose (Dmean) and maximum dose (Dmax) of PGTV were calculated from dose volume histogram (DVH) to confirm the coverage and calculate CI and HI. In OAR evaluation, the dose received from the rectal volume 25% and the dose received from the bladder were evaluated to compare the normal long-term protection effect. Results: The mean maximum doses of the three patients were 71.4Gy, 75.3Gy and the mean doses were 70.4Gy and 72.8Gy in the DVH of the Tomo IMRT and Proton PBS. The CI was 1.16 and 1.31, and the HI was 0.04 and 0.12 respectively, and the Tomo IMRT was superior to the Proton PBS in dose suitability. Conclusion: The mean dose of PGTV in prostate cancer patients was 3.4% higher in Proton PBS than in Tomo IMRT. This is because the Dose suitability of Tomo IMRT was better, but it is considered to be a small difference to be seen as a significant result. However, the results of the two methods were 51.2% in D 25% and 55.7% less in the average dose of bladder, which could reduce the side effects of patients in proton PBS.
Keywords
Prostate cancer; Tomotherapy IMRT(Tomo IMRT); Protontherapy PBS(Proton PBS); Beam method;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 천준 대한비뇨기과학회 회장 한국일보 전립선암 10년간 32 % 늘어... "조기 진단위해 일반건강검진에 포함을", 08. 27. 2018.
2 김길원, 연합뉴스 "전립선암, 한국인에게 더 독하다...20년 후 사망자 3배로", 12. 05. 2018.
3 허광명, "전립선암의 방사선치료에서 토모 테라피와 용적변조회전치료(VMAT)의 치료계획에 따른 유용성 평가= Usefulness Evaluation on the Treatment Plan of Tomotherapy and VMAT in the Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer, 동신대학교 일반대학원: 방사선학과, 학위논문(석사), 2016, PP.12-17.
4 안용찬, 세기조절 방사선치료 기술의 소개 2011 November; J Korean Med Assoc 54(11): 1172-1178.   DOI
5 이향선, CIOBIZ "삼성의료원, 암치료를 위한 양성자치료센터 열어" 05. 26. 2016.
6 PBS, THE FUTURE OF PROTON THERAPY prototherapytoday web site. available at: http://www.proton-therapy-today.com/pbs-the-future-of-proton-therapy. accessed July 3, 2007.
7 구채원, 경기일보 "고려대학교 안산병원, 암 치료용 선형가속기 TrueBeam STx 가동으로 암 환자 희소식", 08. 13. 2019.
8 방사선치료의 부작용 국립암센터 공식 홈페이지 available at: https://www.ncc.re.kr/main.ncc?uri=proton_radiation05.
9 Lee sang kyu 외 8명, Rectal Balloon for the Immobilization of the Prostate Internal Motion 2005년, pp.113-124.
10 이레나 외 3명 전립선암 환자의 방사선 치료 시 방광 체적변화 2008년 VOLUME 33 NUMBER 2 pp.61-65.
11 권경태 외 1명 전립선암 치료 시 방광의 용적 변화에 따른 선량의 비교 평가 2017, vol.40, no.3, pp. 415-421.
12 Deva Petrova 외 2명 Conformity Index and Homogeneity Index of the Postoperative Whole Breast Radiotherapy 2017년 Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2017 Oct 15; 5(6): 736-739.   DOI
13 Lynne Eldridge, What Is Proton Beam Therapy for Cancer? Very Well Helth Web site. available at: https://www.verywellhealth.com/proton-beamtherapy-actions-uses-side-effects-4147398. Accessed November 15, 2018.