The Effect of Treatment Position on Rectal and Bladder Dose-Volume Histograms for Prostate Radiotherapy Planned with 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

Kotaro Terashima, Katsumasa Nakamura, Tomonari Sasaki, Saiji Ohga, Tadamasa Yoshitake, Kazushige Atsumi, Makoto Shinoto, Kaori Asai, Keiji Matsumoto, Hidenari Hirata, Yoshiyuki Shioyama, Akihiro Nishie (+1 others)
2014 International Journal of Medical Physics Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology  
How to cite this paper: Terashima, K., et al. (2014) The Effect of Treatment Position on Rectal and Bladder Dose-Volume Histograms for Prostate Radiotherapy Planned with 3-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, 3, 88-97. http://dx. Abstract Purpose: To compare target coverage and organ at risk (OAR) sparing in the supine and prone positions
more » ... d prone positions with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in low-and high-risk prostate radiotherapy cases. Materials and Methods: Using magnetic resonance images of five healthy volunteers, six treatment plans (supine 3DCRT, prone 3DCRT, supine IMRT, prone IMRT, supine VMAT and prone VMAT) were generated. Planning target volume 1 (PTV1) was defined as the prostate gland plus the seminal vesicles with adequate margins in a high-risk setting, while PTV2 was defined as prostate only with margins in a low-risk setting. The mean dose for both PTV1 and PTV2 was set at 78 Gy. Plans generated by each of the 3 techniques were compared between the supine and prone positions using dose-volume histograms (DVHs). Results: For PTV1, prone 3DCRT provided a significantly higher D98% than did supine 3DCRT, and its homogeneity index (HI) was significantly better. IMRT and VMAT values did not differ significantly between the prone and supine positions. For PTV2, no values differed significantly between the supine and prone positions under any treatment plan. With respect to OAR, the rectal Dmean, D2%, V50, and V60 values of PTV1 were K. Terashima et al. 89 statistically higher in supine 3DCRT than in prone 3DCRT, while there were no significant differences in rectal values between the supine and prone positions with IMRT or VMAT. The rectal Dmean, V50, V60, V70, and V75 values of prone 3DCRT were significantly higher than those of supine IMRT or supine VMAT. There were no significant differences in any values for the rectum and bladder for PTV2. Conclusion: Although prone 3DCRT was found to be superior to supine 3DCRT in terms of rectal sparing in high-risk prostate cancer, IMRT and VMAT techniques could possibly cover this disadvantage.
doi:10.4236/ijmpcero.2014.32014 fatcat:pnpc5tif5bcfvnci3jms5ymvbq