Clinical Oncology
Volume 21, Issue 5 , Pages 401-407, June 2009

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy and Conventional Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy for Simultaneous Maximal Intraprostatic Boost: a Planning Comparison Study

  • R. Shaffer

      Affiliations

    • British Columbia Cancer Agency, 600 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V5Z 4E6
    • Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London W6 8RF, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationAuthor for correspondence: R. Shaffer, BC Cancer Agency, 600 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V5Z 4E6. Tel: +604-877-6000; Fax: +604-877-0505.
  • ,
  • W.J. Morris

      Affiliations

    • British Columbia Cancer Agency, 600 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V5Z 4E6
  • ,
  • V. Moiseenko

      Affiliations

    • British Columbia Cancer Agency, 600 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V5Z 4E6
  • ,
  • M. Welsh

      Affiliations

    • British Columbia Cancer Agency, 600 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V5Z 4E6
  • ,
  • C. Crumley

      Affiliations

    • British Columbia Cancer Agency, 600 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V5Z 4E6
  • ,
  • S. Nakano

      Affiliations

    • British Columbia Cancer Agency, 600 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V5Z 4E6
  • ,
  • M. Schmuland

      Affiliations

    • British Columbia Cancer Agency, 600 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V5Z 4E6
  • ,
  • T. Pickles

      Affiliations

    • British Columbia Cancer Agency, 600 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V5Z 4E6
  • ,
  • K. Otto

      Affiliations

    • British Columbia Cancer Agency, 600 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V5Z 4E6

Received 10 October 2008; received in revised form 30 December 2008; accepted 22 January 2009.

Abstract 

Aims

Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a novel extension of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) where an optimised three-dimensional dose distribution may be delivered in a single gantry rotation. This optimisation algorithm is the predecessor to Varian's RapidArc. The aim of this study was to compare the ability of conventional static nine-field IMRT (cIMRT) and VMAT to boost as much of the clinical target volume (CTV) as possible to 88.8Gy without exceeding organ at risk (OAR) dose-volume constraints.

Materials and methods

Optimal cIMRT and VMAT radiotherapy plans were produced for 10 patients with localised prostate cancer using common planning objectives: (1) Treat ≥98% of the planning target volume (PTV) to ≥95% of the prescription dose (74Gy in 37 fractions); (2) keep OAR doses within predefined limits; (3) treat as much of prostate CTV (minus urethra) as possible to ≥120% of prescription dose (=88.8Gy); (4) keep within maximum dose limits in and out of target volumes; (5) conformality index (volume of 95% isodose/volume of PTV)≤1.2.

Results

VMAT and cIMRT boosted an average of 68.8 and 63.5% of the CTV to ≥120% of the prescription dose (P=0.002). All dose constraints were kept within predefined limits. VMAT and cIMRT required an average of 949 and 1819 monitor units and 3.7 and 9.6min, respectively, to deliver a single radiation fraction.

Conclusions

VMAT is able to boost more of the CTV to ≥120% than cIMRT without contravening OAR dose constraints, and uses 48% fewer monitor units. Treatment times were 61% less than with cIMRT.

Key words: Boost, IMRT, prostate cancer, radiotherapy, VMAT

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0936-6555(09)00045-4

doi:10.1016/j.clon.2009.01.014

Clinical Oncology
Volume 21, Issue 5 , Pages 401-407, June 2009