Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2004 Jan;70(1):1-10.
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2003.09.004.

Clinical implementation of dynamic and step-and-shoot IMRT to treat prostate cancer with high risk of pelvic lymph node involvement

Elizabeth J Adams  1 , David J Convery, Vivian P Cosgrove, Helen A McNair, John N Staffurth, Jaap Vaarkamp, Christopher M Nutting, Alan P Warrington, Steve Webb, Jan Balyckyi, David P Dearnaley
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Clinical implementation of dynamic and step-and-shoot IMRT to treat prostate cancer with high risk of pelvic lymph node involvement

Elizabeth J Adams et al. Radiother Oncol. 2004 Jan.

Abstract

Background and purpose: Two systems have been developed for treating patients with locally advanced prostate cancer using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT): one using dynamic multi-leaf collimator delivery and the other using step-and-shoot. This paper describes the clinical implementation of these two techniques, and presents results from the first 14 patients treated in a clinical setting (nine dynamic, five step-and-shoot).

Patients and methods: Dynamic treatments were planned using Corvus, and step-and-shoot using Helax-TMS; all were delivered using Elekta accelerators. Prior to the first clinical treatments, validation measurements were carried out for each system, including measurements for a complete IMRT treatment. The reproducibility of dynamic delivery and the characteristics of the accelerator for low-monitor-unit (MU) deliveries were also assessed. An extensive quality assurance (QA) program was performed for each of the patients. Additionally, timing measurements were carried out to assess the practicalities of the technique.

Results: The planning objectives were met in most cases. Absolute doses for complete IMRT treatments were within 2%, on average, with dose distributions generally showing agreement within 3% or 3 mm. Beam modulation measurements made throughout each patient's treatment indicated that both delivery methods were reproducible. The dynamic plans required an average of 765 MU per beam, with a treatment delivery time of 14 min; corresponding results for step-and-shoot plans were 105 MU and 10 min.

Conclusions: Two IMRT techniques for this group of patients have been successfully implemented in the clinic. The more complex dynamic treatments showed no advantages over the step-and-shoot approach. QA results have shown accurate and reproducible delivery for both techniques, giving increased confidence in the techniques and allowing a reduction in the QA program.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources