Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 18, Number 5, 2013

Comparison of dosimetric variation between prostate IMRT and VMAT due to patient’s weight loss: Patient and phantom study

James C.L. Chow, Runqing Jiang

Summary:

Aim: This study compared the dosimetric impact between prostate IMRT and VMAT due to
patient’s weight loss.
Background: Dosimetric variation due to change of patient’s body contour is difficult to predict
in prostate IMRT and VMAT, since a large number of small and irregular segmental fields is
used in the delivery.
Materials and methods: Five patients with prostate volumes ranging from 32.0 to 86.5 cm3
and a heterogeneous pelvis phantom were used for prostate IMRT and VMAT plans using
the same set of dose–volume constraints. Doses in IMRT and VMAT plans were recalculated
with the patient’s and phantom’s body contour reduced by 0.5–2 cm to mimic size reduction.
Dose coverage/criteria of the PTV and CTV and critical organs (rectum, bladder and femoral
heads) were compared between IMRT and VMAT.
Results: In IMRT plans, increases of the D99% for the PTV and CTV were equal to 4.0 ± 0.1%
per cm of reduced depth, which were higher than those in VMAT plans (2.7 ± 0.24% per cm).
Moreover, increases of the D30% of the rectum and bladder per reduced depth in IMRT plans
(4.0 ± 0.2% per cm and 3.5 ± 0.5% per cm) were higher than those of VMAT (2.2 ± 0.2% per cm
and 2.0 ± 0.6% per cm). This was also true for the increase of the D5% for the right femoral
head in a patient or phantom with size reduction due to weight loss.
Conclusions: VMAT would be preferred to IMRT in prostate radiotherapy, when a patient has
potential to suffer from weight loss during the treatment.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2013; 18(5) : 272-278


« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2