skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: A comprehensive dosimetric study of pancreatic cancer treatment using three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric-modulated radiation therapy (VMAT), and passive-scattering and modulated-scanning proton therapy (PT)

Abstract

With traditional photon therapy to treat large postoperative pancreatic target volume, it often leads to poor tolerance of the therapy delivered and may contribute to interrupted treatment course. This study was performed to evaluate the potential advantage of using passive-scattering (PS) and modulated-scanning (MS) proton therapy (PT) to reduce normal tissue exposure in postoperative pancreatic cancer treatment. A total of 11 patients with postoperative pancreatic cancer who had been previously treated with PS PT in University of Pennsylvania Roberts Proton Therapy Center from 2010 to 2013 were identified. The clinical target volume (CTV) includes the pancreatic tumor bed as well as the adjacent high-risk nodal areas. Internal (iCTV) was generated from 4-dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT), taking into account target motion from breathing cycle. Three-field and 4-field 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), 5-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy, 2-arc volumetric-modulated radiation therapy, and 2-field PS and MS PT were created on the patients’ average CT. All the plans delivered 50.4 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV). Overall, 98% of PTV was covered by 95% of the prescription dose and 99% of iCTV received 98% prescription dose. The results show that all the proton plans offer significant lower doses to the leftmore » kidney (mean and V{sub 18} {sub Gy}), stomach (mean and V{sub 20} {sub Gy}), and cord (maximum dose) compared with all the photon plans, except 3-field 3DCRT in cord maximum dose. In addition, MS PT also provides lower doses to the right kidney (mean and V{sub 18} {sub Gy}), liver (mean dose), total bowel (V{sub 20} {sub Gy} and mean dose), and small bowel (V{sub 15} {sub Gy} absolute volume ratio) compared with all the photon plans and PS PT. The dosimetric advantage of PT points to the possibility of treating tumor bed and comprehensive nodal areas while providing a more tolerable treatment course that could be used for dose escalation and combining with radiosensitizing chemotherapy.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22395908
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Dosimetry; Journal Volume: 39; Journal Issue: 2; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2014 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; CHEMOTHERAPY; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; KIDNEYS; LIVER; NEOPLASMS; PANCREAS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Ding, Xuanfeng, Dionisi, Francesco, Tang, Shikui, Ingram, Mark, Hung, Chun-Yu, Prionas, Evangelos, Lichtenwalner, Phil, Butterwick, Ian, Zhai, Huifang, Yin, Lingshu, Lin, Haibo, Kassaee, Alireza, and Avery, Stephen, E-mail: stephen.avery@uphs.upenn.edu. A comprehensive dosimetric study of pancreatic cancer treatment using three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric-modulated radiation therapy (VMAT), and passive-scattering and modulated-scanning proton therapy (PT). United States: N. p., 2014. Web. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2013.11.005.
Ding, Xuanfeng, Dionisi, Francesco, Tang, Shikui, Ingram, Mark, Hung, Chun-Yu, Prionas, Evangelos, Lichtenwalner, Phil, Butterwick, Ian, Zhai, Huifang, Yin, Lingshu, Lin, Haibo, Kassaee, Alireza, & Avery, Stephen, E-mail: stephen.avery@uphs.upenn.edu. A comprehensive dosimetric study of pancreatic cancer treatment using three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric-modulated radiation therapy (VMAT), and passive-scattering and modulated-scanning proton therapy (PT). United States. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2013.11.005.
Ding, Xuanfeng, Dionisi, Francesco, Tang, Shikui, Ingram, Mark, Hung, Chun-Yu, Prionas, Evangelos, Lichtenwalner, Phil, Butterwick, Ian, Zhai, Huifang, Yin, Lingshu, Lin, Haibo, Kassaee, Alireza, and Avery, Stephen, E-mail: stephen.avery@uphs.upenn.edu. 2014. "A comprehensive dosimetric study of pancreatic cancer treatment using three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric-modulated radiation therapy (VMAT), and passive-scattering and modulated-scanning proton therapy (PT)". United States. doi:10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2013.11.005.
@article{osti_22395908,
title = {A comprehensive dosimetric study of pancreatic cancer treatment using three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric-modulated radiation therapy (VMAT), and passive-scattering and modulated-scanning proton therapy (PT)},
author = {Ding, Xuanfeng and Dionisi, Francesco and Tang, Shikui and Ingram, Mark and Hung, Chun-Yu and Prionas, Evangelos and Lichtenwalner, Phil and Butterwick, Ian and Zhai, Huifang and Yin, Lingshu and Lin, Haibo and Kassaee, Alireza and Avery, Stephen, E-mail: stephen.avery@uphs.upenn.edu},
abstractNote = {With traditional photon therapy to treat large postoperative pancreatic target volume, it often leads to poor tolerance of the therapy delivered and may contribute to interrupted treatment course. This study was performed to evaluate the potential advantage of using passive-scattering (PS) and modulated-scanning (MS) proton therapy (PT) to reduce normal tissue exposure in postoperative pancreatic cancer treatment. A total of 11 patients with postoperative pancreatic cancer who had been previously treated with PS PT in University of Pennsylvania Roberts Proton Therapy Center from 2010 to 2013 were identified. The clinical target volume (CTV) includes the pancreatic tumor bed as well as the adjacent high-risk nodal areas. Internal (iCTV) was generated from 4-dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT), taking into account target motion from breathing cycle. Three-field and 4-field 3D conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), 5-field intensity-modulated radiation therapy, 2-arc volumetric-modulated radiation therapy, and 2-field PS and MS PT were created on the patients’ average CT. All the plans delivered 50.4 Gy to the planning target volume (PTV). Overall, 98% of PTV was covered by 95% of the prescription dose and 99% of iCTV received 98% prescription dose. The results show that all the proton plans offer significant lower doses to the left kidney (mean and V{sub 18} {sub Gy}), stomach (mean and V{sub 20} {sub Gy}), and cord (maximum dose) compared with all the photon plans, except 3-field 3DCRT in cord maximum dose. In addition, MS PT also provides lower doses to the right kidney (mean and V{sub 18} {sub Gy}), liver (mean dose), total bowel (V{sub 20} {sub Gy} and mean dose), and small bowel (V{sub 15} {sub Gy} absolute volume ratio) compared with all the photon plans and PS PT. The dosimetric advantage of PT points to the possibility of treating tumor bed and comprehensive nodal areas while providing a more tolerable treatment course that could be used for dose escalation and combining with radiosensitizing chemotherapy.},
doi = {10.1016/J.MEDDOS.2013.11.005},
journal = {Medical Dosimetry},
number = 2,
volume = 39,
place = {United States},
year = 2014,
month = 7
}
  • To compare the dosimetric differences between the single-arc volumetric-modulated arc therapy (sVMAT), 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT), and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) techniques in treatment planning for gastric cancer as adjuvant radiotherapy. Twelve patients were retrospectively analyzed. In each patient's case, the parameters were compared based on the dose-volume histogram (DVH) of the sVMAT, 3D-CRT, and IMRT plans, respectively. Three techniques showed similar target dose coverage. The maximum and mean doses of the target were significantly higher in the sVMAT plans than that in 3D-CRT plans and in the 3D-CRT/IMRT plans, respectively, but these differences were clinically acceptable. The IMRT and sVMATmore » plans successfully achieved better target dose conformity, reduced the V{sub 20/30}, and mean dose of the left kidney, as well as the V{sub 20/30} of the liver, compared with the 3D-CRT plans. And the sVMAT technique reduced the V{sub 20} of the liver much significantly. Although the maximum dose of the spinal cord were much higher in the IMRT and sVMAT plans, respectively (mean 36.4 vs 39.5 and 40.6 Gy), these data were still under the constraints. Not much difference was found in the analysis of the parameters of the right kidney, intestine, and heart. The IMRT and sVMAT plans achieved similar dose distribution to the target, but superior to the 3D-CRT plans, in adjuvant radiotherapy for gastric cancer. The sVMAT technique improved the dose sparings of the left kidney and liver, compared with the 3D-CRT technique, but showed few dosimetric advantages over the IMRT technique. Studies are warranted to evaluate the clinical benefits of the VMAT treatment for patients with gastric cancer after surgery in the future.« less
  • The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical implementation of tangential field IMRT using sliding window technique and to compare dosimetric parameters with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT). Twenty breast cancer patients were randomly selected for comparison of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)-based treatment plan with 3DCRT. Inverse treatment was performed using the sliding window technique, employing the Eclipse Planning System (version 7.1.59, Varian, Palo Alto, CA). The dosimetric parameters compared were V{sub 95} (the percentage of target volume getting {>=}95% of prescribed dose), V{sub 105}, V{sub 110}, and dose homogeneity index, DHI (percentage of target volume gettingmore » between 95% and 110% of prescribed dose). The mean V{sub 95}, DHI, V{sub 105}, and V{sub 110} for target volume for IMRT vs. 3D were 90.6% (standard deviation [SD]: 3.2) vs. 91% (SD: 3.0), 87.7 (SD: 6.0) vs. 82.6 (SD: 7.8), 27.3% (SD: 20.3) vs. 49.4% (SD: 14.3), and 2.8 (SD: 5.6) vs. 8.4% (SD: 7.4), respectively. DHI was increased by 6.3% with IMRT compared to 3DCRT (p < 0.05). The reductions of V{sub 105} and V{sub 110} for the IMRT compared to 3DCRT were 44.7% and 66.3%, respectively (p < 0.01). The mean dose and V{sub 30} for heart with IMRT were 2.3 (SD: 1.1) and 1.05 (SD: 1.5) respectively, which was a reduction by 6.8% and 7.9%, respectively, in comparison with 3D. Similarly, the mean dose and V{sub 20} for the ipsilateral lung and the percentage of volume of contralateral volume lung receiving > 5% of prescribed dose with IMRT were reduced by 9.9%, 2.2%, and 35%, respectively. The mean of total monitor units used for IMRT and 3DCRT was about the same (397 vs. 387). The tangential field IMRT for intact breast using sliding window technique was successfully implemented in the clinic. We have now treated more than 1000 breast cancer patients with this technique. The dosimetric data suggest improved dose homogeneity in the breast and reduction in the dose to lung and heart for IMRT treatments, which may be of clinical value in potentially contributing to improved cosmetic results and reduced late treatment-related toxicity.« less
  • Purpose: This study evaluates the dosimetric differences using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in patients previously treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy IMRT for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in early stage lung cancer. Methods: We evaluated 9 consecutive medically inoperable lung cancer patients at the start of the SBRT program who were treated with IMRT from November 2010 to October 2011. These patients were treated using 6 MV energy. The 9 cases were then re-planned with VMAT performed with arc therapy using 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) energy with the same organs at risk (OARS) constraints. Data collected formore » the treatment plans included target coverage, beam on time, dose to OARS and gamma pass rate. Results: Five patients were T1N0 and four patients were T2N0 with all tumors less than 5 cm. The average GTV was 13.02 cm3 (0.83–40.87) and average PTV was 44.65 cm3 (14.06–118.08). The IMRT plans had a mean of 7.2 angles (6–9) and 5.4 minutes (3.6–11.1) per plan. The VMAT plans had a mean of 2.8 arcs (2–3) and 4.0 minutes (2.2–6.0) per plan. VMAT had slightly more target coverage than IMRT with average increase in D95 of 2.68% (1.24–5.73) and D99 of 3.65% (0.88–8.77). VMAT produced lower doses to all OARs. The largest reductions were in maximum doses to the spinal cord with an average reduction of 24.1%, esophagus with an average reduction of 22.1%, and lung with an average reduction in the V20 of 16.3% The mean gamma pass rate was 99.8% (99.2–100) at 3 mm and 3% for VMAT with comparable values for IMRT. Conclusion: These findings suggest that using VMAT for SBRT in early stage lung cancer is superior to IMRT in terms of dose coverage, OAR dose and a lower treatment delivery time with a similar gamma pass rate.« less
  • The primary aim of this study is to compare intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for the radical treatment of prostate cancer using version 10.0 (v10.0) of Varian Medical Systems, RapidArc radiation oncology system. Particular focus was placed on plan quality and the implications on departmental resources. The secondary objective was to compare the results in v10.0 to the preceding version 8.6 (v8.6). Twenty prostate cancer cases were retrospectively planned using v10.0 of Varian's Eclipse and RapidArc software. Three planning techniques were performed: a 5-field IMRT, VMAT using one arc (VMAT-1A), and VMAT with twomore » arcs (VMAT-2A). Plan quality was assessed by examining homogeneity, conformity, the number of monitor units (MUs) utilized, and dose to the organs at risk (OAR). Resource implications were assessed by examining planning and treatment times. The results obtained using v10.0 were also compared to those previously reported by our group for v8.6. In v10.0, each technique was able to produce a dose distribution that achieved the departmental planning guidelines. The IMRT plans were produced faster than VMAT plans and displayed improved homogeneity. The VMAT plans provided better conformity to the target volume, improved dose to the OAR, and required fewer MUs. Treatments using VMAT-1A were significantly faster than both IMRT and VMAT-2A. Comparison between versions 8.6 and 10.0 revealed that in the newer version, VMAT planning was significantly faster and the quality of the VMAT dose distributions produced were of a better quality. VMAT (v10.0) using one or two arcs provides an acceptable alternative to IMRT for the treatment of prostate cancer. VMAT-1A has the greatest impact on reducing treatment time.« less
  • Patients with anal canal carcinoma treated with standard conformal radiotherapy frequently experience severe acute and late toxicity reactions to the treatment area. Roohipour et al. (Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 51: 147–53) stated a patient's tolerance of chemoradiation to be an important prediction of treatment success. A new intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) technique for anal carcinoma cases has been developed at the Andrew Love Cancer Centre aimed at reducing radiation to surrounding healthy tissue. A same-subject repeated measures design was used for this study, where five anal carcinoma cases at the Andrew Love Cancer Centre were selected. Conformal and IMRTmore » plans were generated and dosimetric evaluations were performed. Each plan was prescribed a total of 54 Gray (Gy) over a course of 30 fractions to the primary site. The IMRT plans resulted in improved dosimetry to the planning target volume (PTV) and reduction in radiation to the critical structures (bladder, external genitalia and femoral heads). Statistically there was no difference between the IMRT and conformal plans in the dose to the small and large bowel; however, the bowel IMRT dose–volume histogram (DVH) doses were consistently lower. The IMRT plans were superior to the conformal plans with improved dose conformity and reduced radiation to the surrounding healthy tissue. Anecdotally it was found that patients tolerated the IMRT treatment better than the three-dimensional (3D) conformal radiation therapy. This study describes and compares the planning techniques.« less