Dosimetric effect of photon beam energy on volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment plan quality due to body habitus in advanced prostate cancer

D. N. Stanley, T. Popp, Chul S Ha, Gregory P Swanson, T. Y. Eng, Nikos Papanikolaou, A. N. Gutiérrez

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to dosimetrically compare 6- and 10-MV photon beam energies in high-risk prostate cancer patients of various body habitus using a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) radiation delivery technique. The objectives of the study were to evaluate whether dosimetric differences exist and to investigate whether differences are dependent on patient body habitus. Methods and materials: Forty patients with various body habitus who had previously received treatment to the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes with VMAT techniques were chosen. Patients were planned in the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system with double or triple SmartArc plans with 6- and 10-MV photon energies. All patients were optimized with the same planning objectives and normalized such that 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) received the prescription dose. Patients were evaluated for PTV and organ at risk (OAR) parameters for the bladder, rectum, small bowel, penile bulb, and sigmoid colon. Metrics used for comparison were D2%, D98%, homogeneity, conformity, and dose falloff for the PTV and D2%, Dmean, V80%, V60%, and V40% for OARs. Statistical differences were evaluated with a paired-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with a significance level of.05. Results: For the PTV, there were no statistically significant differences in Dmean, D2cc, conformation number, and homogeneity index values, but the dose falloff parameters, R50 and R25, showed a median improvement of 6.7% (PAP) and percentage reduction in R50 of 0.436% per centimeter (P2cc of 3.5% in the penile bulb (P

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e625-e633
JournalPractical Radiation Oncology
Volume5
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2015

Fingerprint

Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Photons
Prostatic Neoplasms
Therapeutics
Organs at Risk
Sigmoid Colon
Nonparametric Statistics
Rectum
Prescriptions
Prostate
Urinary Bladder
Lymph Nodes
Radiation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Dosimetric effect of photon beam energy on volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment plan quality due to body habitus in advanced prostate cancer. / Stanley, D. N.; Popp, T.; Ha, Chul S; Swanson, Gregory P; Eng, T. Y.; Papanikolaou, Nikos; Gutiérrez, A. N.

In: Practical Radiation Oncology, Vol. 5, No. 6, 01.11.2015, p. e625-e633.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{afbf21bf0ee947ffb9ae8b099ec57819,
title = "Dosimetric effect of photon beam energy on volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment plan quality due to body habitus in advanced prostate cancer",
abstract = "Purpose: The purpose of this study was to dosimetrically compare 6- and 10-MV photon beam energies in high-risk prostate cancer patients of various body habitus using a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) radiation delivery technique. The objectives of the study were to evaluate whether dosimetric differences exist and to investigate whether differences are dependent on patient body habitus. Methods and materials: Forty patients with various body habitus who had previously received treatment to the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes with VMAT techniques were chosen. Patients were planned in the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system with double or triple SmartArc plans with 6- and 10-MV photon energies. All patients were optimized with the same planning objectives and normalized such that 95{\%} of the planning target volume (PTV) received the prescription dose. Patients were evaluated for PTV and organ at risk (OAR) parameters for the bladder, rectum, small bowel, penile bulb, and sigmoid colon. Metrics used for comparison were D2{\%}, D98{\%}, homogeneity, conformity, and dose falloff for the PTV and D2{\%}, Dmean, V80{\%}, V60{\%}, and V40{\%} for OARs. Statistical differences were evaluated with a paired-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with a significance level of.05. Results: For the PTV, there were no statistically significant differences in Dmean, D2cc, conformation number, and homogeneity index values, but the dose falloff parameters, R50 and R25, showed a median improvement of 6.7{\%} (PAP) and percentage reduction in R50 of 0.436{\%} per centimeter (P2cc of 3.5{\%} in the penile bulb (P",
author = "Stanley, {D. N.} and T. Popp and Ha, {Chul S} and Swanson, {Gregory P} and Eng, {T. Y.} and Nikos Papanikolaou and Guti{\'e}rrez, {A. N.}",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.prro.2015.06.012",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "e625--e633",
journal = "Practical Radiation Oncology",
issn = "1879-8500",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dosimetric effect of photon beam energy on volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment plan quality due to body habitus in advanced prostate cancer

AU - Stanley, D. N.

AU - Popp, T.

AU - Ha, Chul S

AU - Swanson, Gregory P

AU - Eng, T. Y.

AU - Papanikolaou, Nikos

AU - Gutiérrez, A. N.

PY - 2015/11/1

Y1 - 2015/11/1

N2 - Purpose: The purpose of this study was to dosimetrically compare 6- and 10-MV photon beam energies in high-risk prostate cancer patients of various body habitus using a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) radiation delivery technique. The objectives of the study were to evaluate whether dosimetric differences exist and to investigate whether differences are dependent on patient body habitus. Methods and materials: Forty patients with various body habitus who had previously received treatment to the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes with VMAT techniques were chosen. Patients were planned in the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system with double or triple SmartArc plans with 6- and 10-MV photon energies. All patients were optimized with the same planning objectives and normalized such that 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) received the prescription dose. Patients were evaluated for PTV and organ at risk (OAR) parameters for the bladder, rectum, small bowel, penile bulb, and sigmoid colon. Metrics used for comparison were D2%, D98%, homogeneity, conformity, and dose falloff for the PTV and D2%, Dmean, V80%, V60%, and V40% for OARs. Statistical differences were evaluated with a paired-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with a significance level of.05. Results: For the PTV, there were no statistically significant differences in Dmean, D2cc, conformation number, and homogeneity index values, but the dose falloff parameters, R50 and R25, showed a median improvement of 6.7% (PAP) and percentage reduction in R50 of 0.436% per centimeter (P2cc of 3.5% in the penile bulb (P

AB - Purpose: The purpose of this study was to dosimetrically compare 6- and 10-MV photon beam energies in high-risk prostate cancer patients of various body habitus using a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) radiation delivery technique. The objectives of the study were to evaluate whether dosimetric differences exist and to investigate whether differences are dependent on patient body habitus. Methods and materials: Forty patients with various body habitus who had previously received treatment to the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes with VMAT techniques were chosen. Patients were planned in the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system with double or triple SmartArc plans with 6- and 10-MV photon energies. All patients were optimized with the same planning objectives and normalized such that 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) received the prescription dose. Patients were evaluated for PTV and organ at risk (OAR) parameters for the bladder, rectum, small bowel, penile bulb, and sigmoid colon. Metrics used for comparison were D2%, D98%, homogeneity, conformity, and dose falloff for the PTV and D2%, Dmean, V80%, V60%, and V40% for OARs. Statistical differences were evaluated with a paired-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test with a significance level of.05. Results: For the PTV, there were no statistically significant differences in Dmean, D2cc, conformation number, and homogeneity index values, but the dose falloff parameters, R50 and R25, showed a median improvement of 6.7% (PAP) and percentage reduction in R50 of 0.436% per centimeter (P2cc of 3.5% in the penile bulb (P

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84946495082&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84946495082&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.prro.2015.06.012

DO - 10.1016/j.prro.2015.06.012

M3 - Article

VL - 5

SP - e625-e633

JO - Practical Radiation Oncology

JF - Practical Radiation Oncology

SN - 1879-8500

IS - 6

ER -