Treatment plan comparison of linac step and shoot, tomotherapy, rapidarc, and proton therapy for prostate cancer by using the dosimetrical and the biological indices

Suk Lee, Yuan Jie Cao, Kyung Hwan Chang, Jang Bo Shim, Kwang Hyeon Kim, Nam Kwon Lee, Young Je Park, Chul Yong Kim, Sam Ju Cho, Sang Hoon Lee, Chul Kee Min, Woo Chul Kim, Kwang Hwan Cho, Hyun Do Huh, Sangwook Lim, Dongho Shin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to use various dosimetrical indices to determine the best intensitymodulated radiation therapy (IMRT) modality - for treating patients with prostate cancer. Ten patients with prostate cancer were included in this study. IMRT plans were designed to include different modalities, including the linac step and shoot, tomotherapy, RapidArc, and proton systems. Various dosimetrical indices, like the prescription isodose to target volume (PITV) ratio, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), target coverage index (TCI), modified dose homogeneity index (MHI), conformation number (CN), critical organ scoring index (COSI), and quality factor (QF), were determined to compare the different treatment plans. Biological indices, such as the generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) based the tumor control probability (TCP), and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), were also calculated and used to compare the treatment plans. The RapidArc plan attained better PTV coverage, as evidenced by its superior PITV, CI, TCI, MHI, and CN values. Regarding organ at risks (OARs), proton therapy exhibited superior dose sparing for the rectum and the bowel in low dose volumes, whereas the tomotherapy and RapidArc plans achieved better dose sparing in high dose volumes. The QF scores showed no significant difference among these plans (p = 0.701). The average TCPs for prostate tumors in the RapidArc, linac and proton plans were higher than the average TCP for Tomotherapy (98.79%, 98.76%, and 98.75% vs. 98.70%, respectively). Regarding the rectum NTCP, RapidArc showed the most favorable result (0.09%) whereas linac resulted in the best bladder NTCP (0.08%).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)7-16
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of the Korean Physical Society
Volume67
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Jul 31

Fingerprint

therapy
cancer
protons
dosage
homogeneity
rectum
tumors
organs
Q factors
radiation therapy
indexes (ratios)
scoring
bladder

Keywords

  • Dosimetrical index
  • Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)
  • Prostate cancer
  • Radiobiological index

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physics and Astronomy(all)

Cite this

Treatment plan comparison of linac step and shoot, tomotherapy, rapidarc, and proton therapy for prostate cancer by using the dosimetrical and the biological indices. / Lee, Suk; Cao, Yuan Jie; Chang, Kyung Hwan; Shim, Jang Bo; Kim, Kwang Hyeon; Lee, Nam Kwon; Park, Young Je; Kim, Chul Yong; Cho, Sam Ju; Lee, Sang Hoon; Min, Chul Kee; Kim, Woo Chul; Cho, Kwang Hwan; Huh, Hyun Do; Lim, Sangwook; Shin, Dongho.

In: Journal of the Korean Physical Society, Vol. 67, No. 1, 31.07.2015, p. 7-16.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lee, S, Cao, YJ, Chang, KH, Shim, JB, Kim, KH, Lee, NK, Park, YJ, Kim, CY, Cho, SJ, Lee, SH, Min, CK, Kim, WC, Cho, KH, Huh, HD, Lim, S & Shin, D 2015, 'Treatment plan comparison of linac step and shoot, tomotherapy, rapidarc, and proton therapy for prostate cancer by using the dosimetrical and the biological indices', Journal of the Korean Physical Society, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 7-16. https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.67.7
Lee, Suk ; Cao, Yuan Jie ; Chang, Kyung Hwan ; Shim, Jang Bo ; Kim, Kwang Hyeon ; Lee, Nam Kwon ; Park, Young Je ; Kim, Chul Yong ; Cho, Sam Ju ; Lee, Sang Hoon ; Min, Chul Kee ; Kim, Woo Chul ; Cho, Kwang Hwan ; Huh, Hyun Do ; Lim, Sangwook ; Shin, Dongho. / Treatment plan comparison of linac step and shoot, tomotherapy, rapidarc, and proton therapy for prostate cancer by using the dosimetrical and the biological indices. In: Journal of the Korean Physical Society. 2015 ; Vol. 67, No. 1. pp. 7-16.
@article{7f5b008bc4a84b6bb1fa867a5a0d2595,
title = "Treatment plan comparison of linac step and shoot, tomotherapy, rapidarc, and proton therapy for prostate cancer by using the dosimetrical and the biological indices",
abstract = "The purpose of this study was to use various dosimetrical indices to determine the best intensitymodulated radiation therapy (IMRT) modality - for treating patients with prostate cancer. Ten patients with prostate cancer were included in this study. IMRT plans were designed to include different modalities, including the linac step and shoot, tomotherapy, RapidArc, and proton systems. Various dosimetrical indices, like the prescription isodose to target volume (PITV) ratio, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), target coverage index (TCI), modified dose homogeneity index (MHI), conformation number (CN), critical organ scoring index (COSI), and quality factor (QF), were determined to compare the different treatment plans. Biological indices, such as the generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) based the tumor control probability (TCP), and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), were also calculated and used to compare the treatment plans. The RapidArc plan attained better PTV coverage, as evidenced by its superior PITV, CI, TCI, MHI, and CN values. Regarding organ at risks (OARs), proton therapy exhibited superior dose sparing for the rectum and the bowel in low dose volumes, whereas the tomotherapy and RapidArc plans achieved better dose sparing in high dose volumes. The QF scores showed no significant difference among these plans (p = 0.701). The average TCPs for prostate tumors in the RapidArc, linac and proton plans were higher than the average TCP for Tomotherapy (98.79{\%}, 98.76{\%}, and 98.75{\%} vs. 98.70{\%}, respectively). Regarding the rectum NTCP, RapidArc showed the most favorable result (0.09{\%}) whereas linac resulted in the best bladder NTCP (0.08{\%}).",
keywords = "Dosimetrical index, Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), Prostate cancer, Radiobiological index",
author = "Suk Lee and Cao, {Yuan Jie} and Chang, {Kyung Hwan} and Shim, {Jang Bo} and Kim, {Kwang Hyeon} and Lee, {Nam Kwon} and Park, {Young Je} and Kim, {Chul Yong} and Cho, {Sam Ju} and Lee, {Sang Hoon} and Min, {Chul Kee} and Kim, {Woo Chul} and Cho, {Kwang Hwan} and Huh, {Hyun Do} and Sangwook Lim and Dongho Shin",
year = "2015",
month = "7",
day = "31",
doi = "10.3938/jkps.67.7",
language = "English",
volume = "67",
pages = "7--16",
journal = "Journal of the Korean Physical Society",
issn = "0374-4884",
publisher = "Korean Physical Society",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Treatment plan comparison of linac step and shoot, tomotherapy, rapidarc, and proton therapy for prostate cancer by using the dosimetrical and the biological indices

AU - Lee, Suk

AU - Cao, Yuan Jie

AU - Chang, Kyung Hwan

AU - Shim, Jang Bo

AU - Kim, Kwang Hyeon

AU - Lee, Nam Kwon

AU - Park, Young Je

AU - Kim, Chul Yong

AU - Cho, Sam Ju

AU - Lee, Sang Hoon

AU - Min, Chul Kee

AU - Kim, Woo Chul

AU - Cho, Kwang Hwan

AU - Huh, Hyun Do

AU - Lim, Sangwook

AU - Shin, Dongho

PY - 2015/7/31

Y1 - 2015/7/31

N2 - The purpose of this study was to use various dosimetrical indices to determine the best intensitymodulated radiation therapy (IMRT) modality - for treating patients with prostate cancer. Ten patients with prostate cancer were included in this study. IMRT plans were designed to include different modalities, including the linac step and shoot, tomotherapy, RapidArc, and proton systems. Various dosimetrical indices, like the prescription isodose to target volume (PITV) ratio, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), target coverage index (TCI), modified dose homogeneity index (MHI), conformation number (CN), critical organ scoring index (COSI), and quality factor (QF), were determined to compare the different treatment plans. Biological indices, such as the generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) based the tumor control probability (TCP), and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), were also calculated and used to compare the treatment plans. The RapidArc plan attained better PTV coverage, as evidenced by its superior PITV, CI, TCI, MHI, and CN values. Regarding organ at risks (OARs), proton therapy exhibited superior dose sparing for the rectum and the bowel in low dose volumes, whereas the tomotherapy and RapidArc plans achieved better dose sparing in high dose volumes. The QF scores showed no significant difference among these plans (p = 0.701). The average TCPs for prostate tumors in the RapidArc, linac and proton plans were higher than the average TCP for Tomotherapy (98.79%, 98.76%, and 98.75% vs. 98.70%, respectively). Regarding the rectum NTCP, RapidArc showed the most favorable result (0.09%) whereas linac resulted in the best bladder NTCP (0.08%).

AB - The purpose of this study was to use various dosimetrical indices to determine the best intensitymodulated radiation therapy (IMRT) modality - for treating patients with prostate cancer. Ten patients with prostate cancer were included in this study. IMRT plans were designed to include different modalities, including the linac step and shoot, tomotherapy, RapidArc, and proton systems. Various dosimetrical indices, like the prescription isodose to target volume (PITV) ratio, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), target coverage index (TCI), modified dose homogeneity index (MHI), conformation number (CN), critical organ scoring index (COSI), and quality factor (QF), were determined to compare the different treatment plans. Biological indices, such as the generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) based the tumor control probability (TCP), and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), were also calculated and used to compare the treatment plans. The RapidArc plan attained better PTV coverage, as evidenced by its superior PITV, CI, TCI, MHI, and CN values. Regarding organ at risks (OARs), proton therapy exhibited superior dose sparing for the rectum and the bowel in low dose volumes, whereas the tomotherapy and RapidArc plans achieved better dose sparing in high dose volumes. The QF scores showed no significant difference among these plans (p = 0.701). The average TCPs for prostate tumors in the RapidArc, linac and proton plans were higher than the average TCP for Tomotherapy (98.79%, 98.76%, and 98.75% vs. 98.70%, respectively). Regarding the rectum NTCP, RapidArc showed the most favorable result (0.09%) whereas linac resulted in the best bladder NTCP (0.08%).

KW - Dosimetrical index

KW - Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)

KW - Prostate cancer

KW - Radiobiological index

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84938296987&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84938296987&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3938/jkps.67.7

DO - 10.3938/jkps.67.7

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84938296987

VL - 67

SP - 7

EP - 16

JO - Journal of the Korean Physical Society

JF - Journal of the Korean Physical Society

SN - 0374-4884

IS - 1

ER -