Ex) Article Title, Author, Keywords
Ex) Article Title, Author, Keywords
Korean Journal of Medical Physics 2013; 24(3): 154-161
Published online September 30, 2013
Copyright © Korean Society of Medical Physics.
Kihong Son*†, Seungryong Cho*, Jin Sung Kim†, Youngyih Han†, Sang Gyu Ju†, Sung Hwan Ahn†, Eunhyuk Shin†, Jung Suk Shin†, Won Park†, Hongryul Pyo†, Doo Ho Choi†
손기홍*†ㆍ조승룡*ㆍ김진성†ㆍ한영이†ㆍ주상규†ㆍ안성환†ㆍ신은혁†ㆍ신정석†ㆍ박원†ㆍ표홍렬†ㆍ최두호†
This study assessed compared photon and proton treatment techniques, such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), uniform scanning proton therapy (USPT), and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT), for a total of 10 prostate cancers. All treatment plans delivered 70 Gy to 95% of the planned target volume in 28 fractions. IMRT plans had 7 fields for the step and shoot technique, while USPT and IMPT plans employed two equally weighted, parallel-opposed lateral fields to deliver the prescribed dose to the planned target. Inverse planning was then incorporated to optimize IMPT. The homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) for the target and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for organ at risk (OAR) were calculated. Although the mean HI and CI for target were not significantly different for each treatment techniques, the NTCP of the rectum was 2.233, 3.326, and 1.707 for IMRT, USPT, and IMPT, respectively. The NTCP of the bladder was 0.008, 0.003, and 0.002 respectively. The NTCP values at the rectum and bladder were significantly lower using IMPT. Our study shows that using proton therapy, particularly IMPT, to treat prostate cancer could be beneficial compared to 7-field IMRT with similar target coverage. Given these results, radiotherapy using protons, particularly optimized IMPT, is a worthwhile treatment option for prostate cancer.
KeywordsIMRT, USPT, IMPT, Prostate cancer, Treatment planning
pISSN 2508-4445
eISSN 2508-4453
Formerly ISSN 1226-5829
Frequency: Quarterly