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
. 2009 Fall;34(3):256-60.
doi: 10.1016/j.meddos.2008.10.005. Epub 2008 Dec 3.

Dosimetric and radiobiologic comparison of 3D conformal versus intensity modulated planning techniques for prostate bed radiotherapy

Affiliations

Dosimetric and radiobiologic comparison of 3D conformal versus intensity modulated planning techniques for prostate bed radiotherapy

Bridget F Koontz et al. Med Dosim. 2009 Fall.

Abstract

Adjuvant radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer improves biochemical and clinical disease-free survival. While comparisons in intact prostate cancer show a benefit for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) over 3D conformal planning, this has not been studied for post-prostatectomy radiotherapy (RT). This study compares normal tissue and target dosimetry and radiobiological modeling of IMRT vs. 3D conformal planning in the postoperative setting. 3D conformal plans were designed for 15 patients who had been treated with IMRT planning for salvage post-prostatectomy RT. The same computed tomography (CT) and target/normal structure contours, as well as prescription dose, was used for both IMRT and 3D plans. Normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) were calculated based on the dose given to the bladder and rectum by both plans. Dose-volume histogram and NTCP data were compared by paired t-test. Bladder and rectal sparing were improved with IMRT planning compared to 3D conformal planning. The volume of the bladder receiving at least 75% (V75) and 50% (V50) of the dose was significantly reduced by 28% and 17%, respectively (p = 0.002 and 0.037). Rectal dose was similarly reduced, V75 by 33% and V50 by 17% (p = 0.001 and 0.004). While there was no difference in the volume of rectum receiving at least 65 Gy (V65), IMRT planning significant reduced the volume receiving 40 Gy or more (V40, p = 0.009). Bladder V40 and V65 were not significantly different between planning modalities. Despite these dosimetric differences, there was no significant difference in the NTCP for either bladder or rectal injury. IMRT planning reduces the volume of bladder and rectum receiving high doses during post-prostatectomy RT. Because of relatively low doses given to the bladder and rectum, there was no statistically significant improvement in NTCP between the 3D conformal and IMRT plans.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources