Program Information
Dosimetric Comparison of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Using Robotic Versus Traditional Linac Platform in Prostate Cancer
T Hayes1*, J Yang1,2 , C Sims3 , J Rella1 , C Fung4 , (1) Alliance Oncology, Newburyport, MA, (2) Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, (3) Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, (4) Commonwealth Hematology Oncology, Newburyport, MA
Presentations
SU-E-T-125 Sunday 3:00PM - 6:00PM Room: Exhibit HallPurpose:
Recent development of an MLC for robotic external beam radiotherapy has the potential of new clinical application in conventionally fractionated radiation therapy. This study offers a dosimetric comparison of IMRT plans using Cyberknife with MLC versus conventional linac plans.
Methods:
Ten prostate cancer patients treated on a traditional linac with IMRT to 7920cGy at 180cGy/fraction were randomly selected. GTVs were defined as prostate plus proximal seminal vesicles. PTVs were defined as GTV+8mm in all directions except 5mm posteriorly. Conventional IMRT planning was performed on Philips Pinnacle and delivered on a standard linac with CBCT and 10mm collimator leaf width. For each case a Cyberknife plan was created using Accuray Multiplan with same CT data set, contours, and dose constraints. All dosimetric data was transferred to third party software for independent computation of contour volumes and DVH. Delivery efficiency was evaluated using total MU, treatment time, number of beams, and number of segments.
Results:
Evaluation criteria including percent target coverage, homogeneity index, and conformity index were found to be comparable. All dose constraints from QUANTEC were found to be statistically similar except rectum V50Gy and bladder V65Gy. Average rectum V50Gy was lower for robotic IMRT (30.07%±6.57) versus traditional (34.73%±3.62, p=0.0130). Average bladder V65Gy was lower for robotic (17.87%±12.74) versus traditional (21.03%±11.93, p=0.0405). Linac plans utilized 9 coplanar beams, 48.9±3.8 segments, and 19381±2399MU. Robotic plans utilized 38.4±9.0 non-coplanar beams, 85.5±21.0 segments and 42554.71±16381.54 MU. The average treatment was 15.02±0.60 minutes for traditional versus 20.90±2.51 for robotic.
Conclusion:
The robotic IMRT plans were comparable to the traditional IMRT plans in meeting the target volume dose objectives. Critical structure dose constraints were largely comparable although statistically significant differences were found in favor of the robotic platform in terms of rectum V50Gy and bladder V65Gy at a cost of 25% longer treatment time.
Contact Email: