Published January 2005 | Version v1
Journal article

IMRT versus conventional 3DCRT on prostate and normal tissue dosimetry using an endorectal balloon for prostate immobilization

  • 1. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX (United States) and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (United States) and New York University Medical Center School of Medicine, New York NY (United States)
  • 2. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD (United States)
  • 3. Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (United States)
  • 4. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX (United States)
  • 5. Arlington Cancer Center, Arlington, TX (United States)
  • 6. NCH Health Care System, Oklahoma City, OK (United States)
  • 7. University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK (United States)

Description

This study was undertaken to compare prostate and normal tissue dosimetry in prostate cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and conventional 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) using an endorectal balloon for prostate immobilization. Ten prostate cancer patients were studied using both IMRT and conventional 3DCRT at Houston Veterans Affairs Medical Center. For IMRT, the prescription was 70 Gy at 2 Gy/fraction at the 83.4% isodose line, allowing no more than 15% of the rectum and 33% of the bladder to receive above 68 and 65 Gy, respectively. For conventional 3DCRT, a 6-field arrangement with lateral and oblique fields was used to deliver 76 Gy at 2Gy/fraction, ensuring complete tumor coverage by the 72-Gy isodose line. Mean doses for prostate and seminal vesicles were 75.10 and 75.11 Gy, respectively, for IMRT and 75.40 and 75.02 Gy, respectively, for 3DCRT (p > 0.218). 3DCRT delivered significantly higher doses to 33%, 50%, and 66% volumes of rectum by 3.55, 6.64, and 10.18 Gy, respectively (p < 0.002), and upper rectum by 7.26, 9.86, and 9.16 Gy, respectively (p < 0.007). 3DCRT also delivered higher doses to femur volumes of 33% and 50% by 9.38 and 10.19 Gy, respectively, (p < 0.001). Insignificant differences in tumor control probability (TCP) values between IMRT and 3DCRT were calculated for prostate (p = 0.320) and seminal vesicles (p = 0.289). Compared to 3DCRT, IMRT resulted in significantly reduced normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) only for upper rectum (p = 0.025) and femurs (p = 0.021). This study demonstrates that IMRT achieves superior normal tissue avoidance, especially for rectum and femurs compared to 3DCRT, with comparable target dose escalation

Additional details

Identifiers

DOI
10.1016/j.meddos.2005.01.002;
PII
S0958-3947(05)00044-0;

Publishing Information

Journal Title
Medical Dosimetry
Journal Volume
30
Journal Issue
2
Journal Page Range
p. 69-75
ISSN
0958-3947

Optional Information

Copyright
Copyright (c) 2005 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.