SU‐FF‐T‐520

Is IMRT Better Than 3D Conformal Therapy for Prostate Cancer? A Radiobiological Comparison

Sotirios Stathakis, C. Buckey, P. Mavroidis, Gregory P Swanson, D. Mihailidis, Nikos Papanikolaou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: This study compares and evaluates radiation therapy plans for prostate cases using both 3D conformal treatment (3DCRT) plans and IMRT plans, to ascertain if there are dosimetric advantages to IMRT, given the current constraints. We perform a more comprehensive treatment plan evaluation using the biologically effective uniform dose (D̿) together with the complication‐free tumor control probability (P+). Materials and Methods: Plans were generated for ten prostate cases using the Pinnacle3, HiArt Tomotherapy, and Corvus TPSs, using two sets of IMRT constraints: from RTOG 0415, and from published data with stricter constraints. The biological equivalent of the corresponding difference in their mean doses was estimated by the Biologically Effective Uniform Dose (D̿). Results: At the optimum dose levels of the 3D‐CRT dose distributions using 6 and 18 MV energy photons, the complication‐free tumor control probability, P+ is 59.3% for a D̿PTV of 89.0Gy and 67.7% for a D̿PTV of 89.6Gy, respectively. The respective total control probabilities, PB are 87.8% and 89.0%, whereas the corresponding total complication probabilities, PI are 28.5% and 21.3%. At the optimum dose levels of the RTOG dose distributions using 6 and 18 MV energy photons the complication‐free tumor control probability, P+ is 61.9% for a D̿PTV of 87.9Gy and 59.1% for a D̿PTV of 87.0Gy, respectively. The respective total control probabilities, PB are 85.6% and 83.3%, whereas the corresponding total complication probabilities, PI are 23.6% and 24.2%. Conclusions: The 3DCRT plans were able to meet the RTOG criteria, suggesting the added time and expense of IMRT planning was not justified for these cases. To evaluate clinical cases, traditional dose based evaluation tools should be complemented by radiobiological measures. In such situations, the use of P+ ‐ D̿ diagrams to compare similar treatment plans may show that although they look dosimetrically similar, in radiobiological terms they may be quite different.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2643
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume36
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prostatic Neoplasms
Photons
Therapeutics
Prostate
Crows
Neoplasms
Radiotherapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐FF‐T‐520 : Is IMRT Better Than 3D Conformal Therapy for Prostate Cancer? A Radiobiological Comparison. / Stathakis, Sotirios; Buckey, C.; Mavroidis, P.; Swanson, Gregory P; Mihailidis, D.; Papanikolaou, Nikos.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 36, No. 6, 2009, p. 2643.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Stathakis, Sotirios ; Buckey, C. ; Mavroidis, P. ; Swanson, Gregory P ; Mihailidis, D. ; Papanikolaou, Nikos. / SU‐FF‐T‐520 : Is IMRT Better Than 3D Conformal Therapy for Prostate Cancer? A Radiobiological Comparison. In: Medical Physics. 2009 ; Vol. 36, No. 6. pp. 2643.
@article{da2ff371438d4860ab94600442a88fa0,
title = "SU‐FF‐T‐520: Is IMRT Better Than 3D Conformal Therapy for Prostate Cancer? A Radiobiological Comparison",
abstract = "Purpose: This study compares and evaluates radiation therapy plans for prostate cases using both 3D conformal treatment (3DCRT) plans and IMRT plans, to ascertain if there are dosimetric advantages to IMRT, given the current constraints. We perform a more comprehensive treatment plan evaluation using the biologically effective uniform dose (D̿) together with the complication‐free tumor control probability (P+). Materials and Methods: Plans were generated for ten prostate cases using the Pinnacle3, HiArt Tomotherapy, and Corvus TPSs, using two sets of IMRT constraints: from RTOG 0415, and from published data with stricter constraints. The biological equivalent of the corresponding difference in their mean doses was estimated by the Biologically Effective Uniform Dose (D̿). Results: At the optimum dose levels of the 3D‐CRT dose distributions using 6 and 18 MV energy photons, the complication‐free tumor control probability, P+ is 59.3{\%} for a D̿PTV of 89.0Gy and 67.7{\%} for a D̿PTV of 89.6Gy, respectively. The respective total control probabilities, PB are 87.8{\%} and 89.0{\%}, whereas the corresponding total complication probabilities, PI are 28.5{\%} and 21.3{\%}. At the optimum dose levels of the RTOG dose distributions using 6 and 18 MV energy photons the complication‐free tumor control probability, P+ is 61.9{\%} for a D̿PTV of 87.9Gy and 59.1{\%} for a D̿PTV of 87.0Gy, respectively. The respective total control probabilities, PB are 85.6{\%} and 83.3{\%}, whereas the corresponding total complication probabilities, PI are 23.6{\%} and 24.2{\%}. Conclusions: The 3DCRT plans were able to meet the RTOG criteria, suggesting the added time and expense of IMRT planning was not justified for these cases. To evaluate clinical cases, traditional dose based evaluation tools should be complemented by radiobiological measures. In such situations, the use of P+ ‐ D̿ diagrams to compare similar treatment plans may show that although they look dosimetrically similar, in radiobiological terms they may be quite different.",
author = "Sotirios Stathakis and C. Buckey and P. Mavroidis and Swanson, {Gregory P} and D. Mihailidis and Nikos Papanikolaou",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1118/1.3182018",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "2643",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐FF‐T‐520

T2 - Is IMRT Better Than 3D Conformal Therapy for Prostate Cancer? A Radiobiological Comparison

AU - Stathakis, Sotirios

AU - Buckey, C.

AU - Mavroidis, P.

AU - Swanson, Gregory P

AU - Mihailidis, D.

AU - Papanikolaou, Nikos

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - Purpose: This study compares and evaluates radiation therapy plans for prostate cases using both 3D conformal treatment (3DCRT) plans and IMRT plans, to ascertain if there are dosimetric advantages to IMRT, given the current constraints. We perform a more comprehensive treatment plan evaluation using the biologically effective uniform dose (D̿) together with the complication‐free tumor control probability (P+). Materials and Methods: Plans were generated for ten prostate cases using the Pinnacle3, HiArt Tomotherapy, and Corvus TPSs, using two sets of IMRT constraints: from RTOG 0415, and from published data with stricter constraints. The biological equivalent of the corresponding difference in their mean doses was estimated by the Biologically Effective Uniform Dose (D̿). Results: At the optimum dose levels of the 3D‐CRT dose distributions using 6 and 18 MV energy photons, the complication‐free tumor control probability, P+ is 59.3% for a D̿PTV of 89.0Gy and 67.7% for a D̿PTV of 89.6Gy, respectively. The respective total control probabilities, PB are 87.8% and 89.0%, whereas the corresponding total complication probabilities, PI are 28.5% and 21.3%. At the optimum dose levels of the RTOG dose distributions using 6 and 18 MV energy photons the complication‐free tumor control probability, P+ is 61.9% for a D̿PTV of 87.9Gy and 59.1% for a D̿PTV of 87.0Gy, respectively. The respective total control probabilities, PB are 85.6% and 83.3%, whereas the corresponding total complication probabilities, PI are 23.6% and 24.2%. Conclusions: The 3DCRT plans were able to meet the RTOG criteria, suggesting the added time and expense of IMRT planning was not justified for these cases. To evaluate clinical cases, traditional dose based evaluation tools should be complemented by radiobiological measures. In such situations, the use of P+ ‐ D̿ diagrams to compare similar treatment plans may show that although they look dosimetrically similar, in radiobiological terms they may be quite different.

AB - Purpose: This study compares and evaluates radiation therapy plans for prostate cases using both 3D conformal treatment (3DCRT) plans and IMRT plans, to ascertain if there are dosimetric advantages to IMRT, given the current constraints. We perform a more comprehensive treatment plan evaluation using the biologically effective uniform dose (D̿) together with the complication‐free tumor control probability (P+). Materials and Methods: Plans were generated for ten prostate cases using the Pinnacle3, HiArt Tomotherapy, and Corvus TPSs, using two sets of IMRT constraints: from RTOG 0415, and from published data with stricter constraints. The biological equivalent of the corresponding difference in their mean doses was estimated by the Biologically Effective Uniform Dose (D̿). Results: At the optimum dose levels of the 3D‐CRT dose distributions using 6 and 18 MV energy photons, the complication‐free tumor control probability, P+ is 59.3% for a D̿PTV of 89.0Gy and 67.7% for a D̿PTV of 89.6Gy, respectively. The respective total control probabilities, PB are 87.8% and 89.0%, whereas the corresponding total complication probabilities, PI are 28.5% and 21.3%. At the optimum dose levels of the RTOG dose distributions using 6 and 18 MV energy photons the complication‐free tumor control probability, P+ is 61.9% for a D̿PTV of 87.9Gy and 59.1% for a D̿PTV of 87.0Gy, respectively. The respective total control probabilities, PB are 85.6% and 83.3%, whereas the corresponding total complication probabilities, PI are 23.6% and 24.2%. Conclusions: The 3DCRT plans were able to meet the RTOG criteria, suggesting the added time and expense of IMRT planning was not justified for these cases. To evaluate clinical cases, traditional dose based evaluation tools should be complemented by radiobiological measures. In such situations, the use of P+ ‐ D̿ diagrams to compare similar treatment plans may show that although they look dosimetrically similar, in radiobiological terms they may be quite different.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024802327&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024802327&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3182018

DO - 10.1118/1.3182018

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 2643

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -