Comparison of the dose distribution obtained from dosimetric systems with intensity modulated radiotherapy planning system in the treatment of prostate cancer

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Gökçe ◽  
D. Koçyiğit Uslu ◽  
C. Ertunç ◽  
T. Karalı
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Dose Distribution ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Radiotherapy Planning ◽  
Intensity Modulated

scholarly journals Variations in inter-observer contouring and its impact on dosimetric and radiobiological parameters for intensity-modulated radiotherapy planning in treatment of localised prostate cancer

2008 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anup Kumar Bhardwaj ◽  
T.S. Kehwar ◽  
S.K. Chakarvarti ◽  
Goda Jayant Sastri ◽  
A.S. Oinam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Tumour Volume ◽  
Normal Tissue Complication Probability ◽  
Radiotherapy Planning ◽  
Conformity Index ◽  
Tumour Control ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Tumour Control Probability ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractInter-observer variations in contouring and their impacts on dosimetric and radiobiological parameters in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment for localised prostate cancer patients were investigated. Four observers delineated the gross tumour volume (GTV) (prostate and seminal vesicles), bladder and rectum for nine patients. Contouring done by radiologist was considered as gold standard for comparison purposes and for IMRT plan optimisation. Maximum average variations in contoured prostate, bladder and rectum volumes were 3% (SD = 8.4), 2.5% (SD = 4.12) and 13.2% (SD = 6.77), respectively. The average conformity index for standard contouring set (observer A) was 0.85 (SD = 0.028) and statistically significant differences were observed for observers A–B (p = 0.008), A–C (p = 0.006) and A–D (p = 0.011). Average values of normal tissue complication probability for bladder and rectum for observer A were 0.361% (SD = 0.036) and 1.59% (SD = 0.14). Maximum average tumour control probability was 99.94% (SD = 0.035) and statistically significant difference was observed for observers A–B (p = 0.037) and observers A–C (p = 0.01). Inter-observer contouring variations have significant impact on dosimetric and radiobiological outcome in IMRT treatment planning. So accurate contouring of tumour and normal organs is a fundamental prerequisite to make good correlation between calculated and clinical observed results.

The experience of a developing country using an electronic portal imaging device for the verification of patient positioning and dosimetry in radiotherapy for prostate cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 297-301
Author(s):  
Leila Farhat ◽  
N. Fourati ◽  
W. Mnejja ◽  
J. Daoud
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Dose Distribution ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Electronic Portal Imaging Device ◽  
Additional Dose ◽  
Imaging Device ◽  
Portal Imaging ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Electronic Portal Imaging ◽  
Set Up

AbstractPurposeThis is a retrospective study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of routine use of electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in intensity-modulated radiation therapy for localised prostate cancer.Materials and methodsData from 20 patients with localised prostate cancer treated by radical radiotherapy using intensity-modulated technique in Habib Bourguiba Hospital were analysed to define the action levels for pretreatment planer dose distribution of 100 treatment fields and the set-up errors of 418 portal imaging. Pretreatment planar dose distribution was measured with the EPID. The additional dose from repeated portal imaging was determined with treatment planning system.ResultsFor all 100 fields, the predicted and the measured planar dose distribution agrees well with mean±standard deviation value for γmax=2·31±0·57, γavg=0·36±0·07 and γ%≤1=98·94%±0·71%, respectively. For the evaluation of set-up errors, the mean total errors with 1 SD in the lateral, longitudinal and vertical directions were 0·11±0·44 cm; 0·02±0·37 cm and −0·02±0·21 cm, respectively. The imaging additional dose was evaluated as 1 cGy per monitor unit.ConclusionEPID is a useful tool to verify pretreatment dose distribution and to assess the correct field position without a significant increase in the absorbed dose due to the repetition of portal imaging.

RapidArc radiotherapy planning for prostate cancer: Single-arc and double-arc techniques vs. intensity-modulated radiotherapy

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry C.K. Sze ◽  
Michael C.H. Lee ◽  
Wai-Man Hung ◽  
Tsz-Kok Yau ◽  
Anne W.M. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Radiotherapy Planning ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Single Arc
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document