|
KMID : 1164220180300010107
|
|
Journal of Korean Society for Radiotherapeutic Technology
2018 Volume.30 No. 1 p.107 ~ p.116
|
|
|
Dosimetric Comparison of One Arc & Two Arc VMAT Plan for Prostate cancer patients
|
|
Kim Byoung-Chan
Kim Jong-Deok
Kim Hyo-Jung
Park Ho-Choon
Back Jeong-Ok
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Purpose : Intensity-modulated radiation therapy(IMRT) has been widely used for radiation therapy of Prostate Cancer because it can reduce radiation adverse effects on normal tissues and deliver more dose to the Prostate than 3D radiation therapy. Volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) has been widely used due to recent advances in equipment and treatment techniques. VMAT can reduce treatment time by up to 55 % compared to IMRT, minimizing motion error during treatment.
Materials and Methods : In this study, compared the MU and DVH values of 10 patients with prostate cancer by classifying them into 4 groups with 5 LN-Prostate groups and 5 Only-Prostate. And DQA measurements were performed using ArcCHECK and MapCHECK.
Results : The results of Target and OAR dose distribution of Prostate patients are as follows. Dmax was in the range of 100~110 % in 4 groups, and more than 110 % of hot spot was not seen. Only-Prostate (P1, P2) without LN had a satisfactory dose distribution for the target dose, but slightly better for 2 arc plan(P2) than 1 arc plan(P1). The target dose D98 % distribution in the LN-Prostate (PL1, PL2) group showed better 2 arc plan(PL2) than 1 arc plan(PL1), But in the case of 1 arc plan(PL1), the target dose D98 % value was not enough. In OAR, the dose distribution of 1 Arc(P1) Plan and 2 Arc(P2) Plan in the Only-Prostate (P1, P2) Group satisfied the prescribed dose value. But, The dose distribution of 1 arc(P1) was slightly higher. In LN-Prostate OAR, 1 Arc(PL1) Plan showed higher dose than the prescribed dose. The Gamma evaluation pass rate of ArcCHECK and MapCHECK calculated from the DQA measurements was slightly higher than 99 % and the mean error range of the point dose measurements using the CC04 ion chamber was less than 1 %.
Conclusion : In this study, Only-Prostate (P1, P2) group, the dose of 2 Arc plan was better. However, considering the treatment time and MU value, 1 Arc treatment method was more suitable. In the LN-Prostate (PL1, PL2) group, 2 Arc(PL2) treatment method showed better results and satisfied with Target D98 % and OAR prescription dose.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Prostate, VMAT, DVH, ArcCHECK, MapCHECK, MU
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|
|