• Sua Yoo, Q Jackie Wu, W Robert Lee, and Fang-Fang Yin.
• Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA. sua.yoo@duke.edu
• Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2010 Mar 1; 76 (3): 935-42.

PurposeDosimetric results and treatment delivery efficiency of RapidArc plans to those of conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans were compared using the Eclipse treatment planning system for high-risk prostate cancer.Materials And MethodsThis study included 10 patients. The primary planning target volume (PTV(P)) contained prostate, seminal vesicles, and pelvic lymph nodes with a margin. The boost PTV (PTV(B)) contained prostate and seminal vesicles with a margin. The total prescription dose was 75.6 Gy (46.8 Gy to PTV(P) and an additional 28.8 Gy to PTV(B); 1.8 Gy/fraction). Three plans were generated for each PTV: Multiple-field IMRT, one-arc RapidArc (1ARC), and two-arc RapidArc (2ARC).ResultsIn the primary IMRT with PTV(P), average mean doses to bladder, rectum and small bowel were lower by 5.9%, 7.7% and 4.3%, respectively, than in the primary 1ARC and by 3.6%, 4.8% and 3.1%, respectively, than in the primary 2ARC. In the boost IMRT with PTV(B), average mean doses to bladder and rectum were lower by 2.6% and 4.8% than with the boost 1ARC and were higher by 0.6% and 0.2% than with the boost 2ARC. Integral doses were 7% to 9% higher with RapidArc than with IMRT for both primary and boost plans. Treatment delivery time was reduced by 2-7 minutes using RapidArc.ConclusionFor PTVs including prostate, seminal vesicles, and lymph nodes, IMRT performed better in dose sparing for bladder, rectum, and small bowel than did RapidArc. For PTVs including prostate and seminal vesicles, RapidArc with two arcs provided plans comparable to those for IMRT. The treatment delivery is more efficient with RapidArc.Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

30 keywords...

hide…