Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy, high-dose rate brachytherapy, and low-dose rate permanent seeds implant for localized prostate cancer
To investigate the dosimetric and radiobiological differences among volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy, and low-dose rate (LDR) permanent seeds implant for localized prostate cancer.A total of 10 patients with localized prostate cancer were selected for this study.VMAT, HDR brachytherapy, and LDR permanent seeds implant plans were created for each patient.For VMAT, planning target volume (PTV) was defined as the clinical target volume plus a margin of 5 mm.Rectum, bladder, urethra, and femoral heads were considered as organs at risk.A 78 Gy in 39 fractions were prescribed for PTV.For HDR and LDR plans, the dose prescription was D9o of 34 Gy in 8.5 Gy per fraction, and 145 Gy to clinical target volume, respectively.The dose and dose volume parameters were evaluated for target, organs at risk.and normal tissue.Physical dose was converted to dose based on 2-Gy fractions (equivalent dose in 2 Gy per fraction, EQD2) for comparison of 3 techniques.HDR and LDR significantly reduced the dose to rectum and bladder compared with VMAT.The Dmean (EQD2) of rectum decreased 22-36 Gy in HDR and 17.01 Gy in LDR from 30.24 Gy in VMAT, respectively.The Dmean (EQD2) of bladder decreased 6.91 Gy in HDR and 2-53 Gy in LDR from 13.46 Gy in VMAT.For the femoral heads and normal tissue, the mean doses were also significantly reduced in both HDR and LDR compared with VMAT.For the urethra, the mean dose (EQD2) was 80.26, 70.23, and 104.91 Gy in VMAT.HDR, and LDR brachytherapy, respectively.For localized prostate cancer, both HDR and LDR brachytherapy were clearly superior in the sparing of rectum, bladder, femoral heads, and normal tissue compared with VMAT.HDR provided the advantage in sparing of urethra compared with VMAT and LDR.
Prostate cancer Volumetric modulated arc therapy High-dose rate brachytherapy Permanent seeds implant Biological effective dose
Ruijie Yang Nan Zhao Anyan Liao Hao Wang Ang Qu
Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
国内会议
北京
英文
532-537
2016-10-01（万方平台首次上网日期，不代表论文的发表时间）