Dosimetric Comparison and Evaluation of 4 Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Techniques for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer

dc.contributor.authorJan Seppälä
dc.contributor.authorSami Suilamo
dc.contributor.authorMikko Tenhunen
dc.contributor.authorLiisa Sailas
dc.contributor.authorHeli Virsunen
dc.contributor.authorErna Kaleva
dc.contributor.authorJani Keyriläinen
dc.contributor.organizationfi=fysiikan ja tähtitieteen laitos|en=Department of Physics and Astronomy|
dc.contributor.organizationfi=tyks, vsshp|en=tyks, varha|
dc.contributor.organization-code1.2.246.10.2458963.20.55477946762
dc.converis.publication-id18469052
dc.converis.urlhttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/Publication/18469052
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-28T13:38:07Z
dc.date.available2022-10-28T13:38:07Z
dc.description.abstract<p> Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare dosimetric characteristics, monitor unit, and delivery efficiency of 4 different stereotactic body radiotherapy techniques for the treatment of prostate cancer. Methods: This study included 8 patients with localized prostate cancer. Dosimetric assets of 4 delivery techniques for stereotactic body radiotherapy were evaluated: robotic CyberKnife, noncoplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and 2 intensity-modulated arc therapy techniques (RapidArc and Elekta volumetric-modulated arc therapy). All the plans had equal treatment margins and a prescription dose of 35 Gy in 5 fractions. </p><p>Results: Statistically significant differences were observed in homogeneity index and mean doses of bladder wall and penile bulb, all of which were highest with CyberKnife. No significant differences were observed in the mean doses of rectum, with values of 15.2+ 2.6, 13.3 +2.6, 13.1 +2.8, and 13.8 +1.6 Gy with CyberKnife, RapidArc, volumetric-modulated arc therapy, and noncoplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy, respectively. The highest dose conformity was realized with RapidArc. The dose coverage of the planning target volume was lowest with noncoplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Treatment times and number of monitor units were largest with CyberKnife (on average 34.0 + 5.0 minutes and 8704 + 1449 monitor units) and least with intensity-modulated arc therapy techniques (on average 5.1 + 1.1 minutes and 2270 + 497 monitor units).</p><p>Conclusion: Compared to CyberKnife, the RapidArc, volumetric-modulated arc therapy, and noncoplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy produced treatment plans with similar dosimetric quality, with RapidArc achieving the highest dose conformity. Overall, the dosimetric differences between the studied techniques were marginal, and thus, the choice of the technique should rather focus on the delivery accuracies and dose delivery times.<br /></p>
dc.format.pagerange238
dc.format.pagerange245
dc.identifier.eissn1533-0338
dc.identifier.jour-issn1533-0338
dc.identifier.olddbid183258
dc.identifier.oldhandle10024/166352
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/11111/58331
dc.identifier.urlhttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1533034616682156
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi-fe2021042716359
dc.language.isoen
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorKeyriläinen, Jani
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorDataimport, tyks, vsshp
dc.okm.discipline217 Medical engineeringen_GB
dc.okm.discipline3122 Cancersen_GB
dc.okm.discipline217 Lääketieteen tekniikkafi_FI
dc.okm.discipline3122 Syöpätauditfi_FI
dc.okm.internationalcopublicationnot an international co-publication
dc.okm.internationalityInternational publication
dc.okm.typeA1 ScientificArticle
dc.publisherSage Publications, Inc.
dc.publisher.countryUnited Statesen_GB
dc.publisher.countryYhdysvallat (USA)fi_FI
dc.publisher.country-codeUS
dc.relation.doi10.1177/1533034616682156
dc.relation.ispartofjournalTechnology in Cancer Research and Treatment
dc.relation.issue2
dc.relation.volume16
dc.source.identifierhttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/10024/166352
dc.titleDosimetric Comparison and Evaluation of 4 Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Techniques for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer
dc.year.issued2017

Tiedostot

Näytetään 1 - 1 / 1
Ladataan...
Name:
1533034616682156.pdf
Size:
752.27 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Publisher's version