Department of Radiation Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 (D10) Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
Department of Medical Technology, Osaka University Hospital, 2-15 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka, 565-0871, Japan.
J Radiat Res. 2021 Mar 10;62(2):309-318. doi: 10.1093/jrr/rraa123.
The purpose of this study was to compare single-arc (SA) and double-arc (DA) treatment plans, which are planning techniques often used in prostate cancer volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), in the presence of intrafractional deformation (ID) to determine which technique is superior in terms of target dose coverage and sparing of the organs at risk (OARs). SA and DA plans were created for 27 patients with localized prostate cancer. ID was introduced to the clinical target volume (CTV), rectum and bladder to obtain blurred dose distributions using an in-house software. ID was based on the motion probability function of each structure voxel and the intrafractional motion of the respective organs. From the resultant blurred dose distributions of SA and DA plans, various parameters, including the tumor control probability, normal tissue complication probability, homogeneity index, conformity index, modulation complexity score for VMAT, dose-volume indices and monitor units (MUs), were evaluated to compare the two techniques. Statistical analysis showed that most CTV and rectum parameters were significantly larger for SA plans than for DA plans (P < 0.05). Furthermore, SA plans had fewer MUs and were less complex (P < 0.05). The significant differences observed had no clinical significance, indicating that both plans are comparable in terms of target and OAR dosimetry when ID is considered. The use of SA plans is recommended for prostate cancer VMAT because they can be delivered in shorter treatment times than DA plans, and therefore benefit the patients.
本研究旨在比较单弧(SA)和双弧(DA)治疗计划,这两种计划技术常用于前列腺癌容积旋转调强放疗(VMAT)中,在分次内变形(ID)存在的情况下,确定哪种技术在靶区剂量覆盖和危及器官(OARs)保护方面更具优势。为 27 名局部前列腺癌患者创建了 SA 和 DA 计划。将 ID 引入临床靶区(CTV)、直肠和膀胱,使用内部软件获得模糊剂量分布。ID 基于每个结构体素的运动概率函数和各器官的分次内运动。从 SA 和 DA 计划的模糊剂量分布中,评估了各种参数,包括肿瘤控制概率、正常组织并发症概率、均匀性指数、适形性指数、VMAT 的调制复杂度评分、剂量-体积指数和监测器单位(MU),以比较两种技术。统计分析表明,与 DA 计划相比,SA 计划的大多数 CTV 和直肠参数显著更大(P<0.05)。此外,SA 计划的 MU 更少,复杂性更低(P<0.05)。观察到的显著差异没有临床意义,表明在考虑 ID 时,两种计划在靶区和 OAR 剂量学方面具有可比性。建议在前列腺癌 VMAT 中使用 SA 计划,因为它们可以比 DA 计划更快地完成治疗,从而使患者受益。