SU‐FF‐T‐82

Non‐Tumor Integral Dose in Conformal, External Beam Radiation Therapy

D. Westerly, H. Aoyama, R. Patel, H. Jaradat, G. Olivera, Wolfgang A. Tome, M. Ritter, M. Mehta, T. Mackie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the computed non‐tumor integral dose (NTID) delivered during treatment of prostate cancer with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared to three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). Low and high‐energy photon treatments were also evaluated in this study, as was helical tomotherapy for IMRT delivery versus a conventional linac. Method and Materials: Five patients with localized prostate cancer were selected. Five treatment plans were generated for each, including: IMRT with both 6 and 20 MV photons using a conventional linac (6MV‐IMRT, 20MV‐IMRT respectively), 3DCRT with both 6 and 20 MV photons (6MV‐3DCRT, 20MV‐3DCRT respectively), and IMRT with 6 MV photons delivered using helical tomotherapy (Tomo‐IMRT). For each plan, a total of 70 Gy was prescribed to 95% of the PTV and the integral dose was calculated from dose‐volume histograms for non‐tumor tissue as well as surrounding critical structures. Results: The NTID with conventional IMRT was 3.9–5.2% less than with 3DCRT, and the use of 20 MV photons resulted in 6.7–8.0% less NTID than treatments using 6 MV. Tomo‐IMRT treatments were comparable to those delivered with a conventional linac. Examination of the integral dose given to surrounding critical structures showed that, compared with 6MV‐3DCRT, 6MV‐IMRT reduced the integral doses to the rectal wall and penile bulb by 2.8% and 6.3% respectively. Tomo‐IMRT further reduced the integral doses to these structures by 12.6% and 18.0% respectively. No reductions were seen using 20 MV. Conclusion: The differences in NTID calculated from different treatment plans are relatively small and might be negligible after accounting for leakage and neutron production at higher energies. The advantage of helical tomotherapy in the treatment of localized prostate cancer was demonstrated through the greater sparing of critical structures with no significant increase in NTID. Conflict of Interest: This work was partially supported by TomoTherapy Inc. and PO1 Grant CA88960‐01‐05.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1968
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume32
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy
Radiotherapy
Photons
Prostatic Neoplasms
Therapeutics
Conformal Radiotherapy
Conflict of Interest
Neutrons

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Westerly, D., Aoyama, H., Patel, R., Jaradat, H., Olivera, G., Tome, W. A., ... Mackie, T. (2005). SU‐FF‐T‐82: Non‐Tumor Integral Dose in Conformal, External Beam Radiation Therapy. Medical Physics, 32(6), 1968. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1997753

SU‐FF‐T‐82 : Non‐Tumor Integral Dose in Conformal, External Beam Radiation Therapy. / Westerly, D.; Aoyama, H.; Patel, R.; Jaradat, H.; Olivera, G.; Tome, Wolfgang A.; Ritter, M.; Mehta, M.; Mackie, T.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 32, No. 6, 2005, p. 1968.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Westerly, D, Aoyama, H, Patel, R, Jaradat, H, Olivera, G, Tome, WA, Ritter, M, Mehta, M & Mackie, T 2005, 'SU‐FF‐T‐82: Non‐Tumor Integral Dose in Conformal, External Beam Radiation Therapy', Medical Physics, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1968. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1997753
Westerly, D. ; Aoyama, H. ; Patel, R. ; Jaradat, H. ; Olivera, G. ; Tome, Wolfgang A. ; Ritter, M. ; Mehta, M. ; Mackie, T. / SU‐FF‐T‐82 : Non‐Tumor Integral Dose in Conformal, External Beam Radiation Therapy. In: Medical Physics. 2005 ; Vol. 32, No. 6. pp. 1968.
@article{f2d76555bee04724a577f59131ae1691,
title = "SU‐FF‐T‐82: Non‐Tumor Integral Dose in Conformal, External Beam Radiation Therapy",
abstract = "Purpose: To investigate the computed non‐tumor integral dose (NTID) delivered during treatment of prostate cancer with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared to three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). Low and high‐energy photon treatments were also evaluated in this study, as was helical tomotherapy for IMRT delivery versus a conventional linac. Method and Materials: Five patients with localized prostate cancer were selected. Five treatment plans were generated for each, including: IMRT with both 6 and 20 MV photons using a conventional linac (6MV‐IMRT, 20MV‐IMRT respectively), 3DCRT with both 6 and 20 MV photons (6MV‐3DCRT, 20MV‐3DCRT respectively), and IMRT with 6 MV photons delivered using helical tomotherapy (Tomo‐IMRT). For each plan, a total of 70 Gy was prescribed to 95{\%} of the PTV and the integral dose was calculated from dose‐volume histograms for non‐tumor tissue as well as surrounding critical structures. Results: The NTID with conventional IMRT was 3.9–5.2{\%} less than with 3DCRT, and the use of 20 MV photons resulted in 6.7–8.0{\%} less NTID than treatments using 6 MV. Tomo‐IMRT treatments were comparable to those delivered with a conventional linac. Examination of the integral dose given to surrounding critical structures showed that, compared with 6MV‐3DCRT, 6MV‐IMRT reduced the integral doses to the rectal wall and penile bulb by 2.8{\%} and 6.3{\%} respectively. Tomo‐IMRT further reduced the integral doses to these structures by 12.6{\%} and 18.0{\%} respectively. No reductions were seen using 20 MV. Conclusion: The differences in NTID calculated from different treatment plans are relatively small and might be negligible after accounting for leakage and neutron production at higher energies. The advantage of helical tomotherapy in the treatment of localized prostate cancer was demonstrated through the greater sparing of critical structures with no significant increase in NTID. Conflict of Interest: This work was partially supported by TomoTherapy Inc. and PO1 Grant CA88960‐01‐05.",
author = "D. Westerly and H. Aoyama and R. Patel and H. Jaradat and G. Olivera and Tome, {Wolfgang A.} and M. Ritter and M. Mehta and T. Mackie",
year = "2005",
doi = "10.1118/1.1997753",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "1968",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐FF‐T‐82

T2 - Non‐Tumor Integral Dose in Conformal, External Beam Radiation Therapy

AU - Westerly, D.

AU - Aoyama, H.

AU - Patel, R.

AU - Jaradat, H.

AU - Olivera, G.

AU - Tome, Wolfgang A.

AU - Ritter, M.

AU - Mehta, M.

AU - Mackie, T.

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - Purpose: To investigate the computed non‐tumor integral dose (NTID) delivered during treatment of prostate cancer with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared to three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). Low and high‐energy photon treatments were also evaluated in this study, as was helical tomotherapy for IMRT delivery versus a conventional linac. Method and Materials: Five patients with localized prostate cancer were selected. Five treatment plans were generated for each, including: IMRT with both 6 and 20 MV photons using a conventional linac (6MV‐IMRT, 20MV‐IMRT respectively), 3DCRT with both 6 and 20 MV photons (6MV‐3DCRT, 20MV‐3DCRT respectively), and IMRT with 6 MV photons delivered using helical tomotherapy (Tomo‐IMRT). For each plan, a total of 70 Gy was prescribed to 95% of the PTV and the integral dose was calculated from dose‐volume histograms for non‐tumor tissue as well as surrounding critical structures. Results: The NTID with conventional IMRT was 3.9–5.2% less than with 3DCRT, and the use of 20 MV photons resulted in 6.7–8.0% less NTID than treatments using 6 MV. Tomo‐IMRT treatments were comparable to those delivered with a conventional linac. Examination of the integral dose given to surrounding critical structures showed that, compared with 6MV‐3DCRT, 6MV‐IMRT reduced the integral doses to the rectal wall and penile bulb by 2.8% and 6.3% respectively. Tomo‐IMRT further reduced the integral doses to these structures by 12.6% and 18.0% respectively. No reductions were seen using 20 MV. Conclusion: The differences in NTID calculated from different treatment plans are relatively small and might be negligible after accounting for leakage and neutron production at higher energies. The advantage of helical tomotherapy in the treatment of localized prostate cancer was demonstrated through the greater sparing of critical structures with no significant increase in NTID. Conflict of Interest: This work was partially supported by TomoTherapy Inc. and PO1 Grant CA88960‐01‐05.

AB - Purpose: To investigate the computed non‐tumor integral dose (NTID) delivered during treatment of prostate cancer with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared to three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). Low and high‐energy photon treatments were also evaluated in this study, as was helical tomotherapy for IMRT delivery versus a conventional linac. Method and Materials: Five patients with localized prostate cancer were selected. Five treatment plans were generated for each, including: IMRT with both 6 and 20 MV photons using a conventional linac (6MV‐IMRT, 20MV‐IMRT respectively), 3DCRT with both 6 and 20 MV photons (6MV‐3DCRT, 20MV‐3DCRT respectively), and IMRT with 6 MV photons delivered using helical tomotherapy (Tomo‐IMRT). For each plan, a total of 70 Gy was prescribed to 95% of the PTV and the integral dose was calculated from dose‐volume histograms for non‐tumor tissue as well as surrounding critical structures. Results: The NTID with conventional IMRT was 3.9–5.2% less than with 3DCRT, and the use of 20 MV photons resulted in 6.7–8.0% less NTID than treatments using 6 MV. Tomo‐IMRT treatments were comparable to those delivered with a conventional linac. Examination of the integral dose given to surrounding critical structures showed that, compared with 6MV‐3DCRT, 6MV‐IMRT reduced the integral doses to the rectal wall and penile bulb by 2.8% and 6.3% respectively. Tomo‐IMRT further reduced the integral doses to these structures by 12.6% and 18.0% respectively. No reductions were seen using 20 MV. Conclusion: The differences in NTID calculated from different treatment plans are relatively small and might be negligible after accounting for leakage and neutron production at higher energies. The advantage of helical tomotherapy in the treatment of localized prostate cancer was demonstrated through the greater sparing of critical structures with no significant increase in NTID. Conflict of Interest: This work was partially supported by TomoTherapy Inc. and PO1 Grant CA88960‐01‐05.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024782897&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024782897&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.1997753

DO - 10.1118/1.1997753

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 1968

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -