Share This Article:

The Dosimetric Effects of Different Beam Energy on Physical Dose Distributions in IMRT Based on Analysis of Physical Indices

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:923KB) PP. 33-43
DOI: 10.4236/jct.2013.411A005    3,597 Downloads   5,448 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

This work aimed at evaluating the effect of 6- and 10-MV photon energies on intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plan outcome in different selected diagnostic cases. For such purpose, 19 patients, with different types of non CNS solid tumers, were selected. Clinical step-and-shoot IMRT treatment plans were designed for delivery on a Siemens Oncor accelerator with 82 leafs; multi-leaf collimators (MLCs). To ensure that the similarity or difference among the plans is due to energy alone, the same optimization constraints were applied for both energy plans. All the parameters like beam angles, number of beams, were kept constant to achieve the same clinical objectives. The Comparative evaluation was based on dose-volumetric analysis of both energy IMRT plans. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used. Several physical indices for Planning Target Volume (PTV), the relevant Organs at Risk (OARs) as mean dose (Dmean), maximum dose (Dmax), 95% dose (D95), integral dose, total number of segments, and the number of MU were applied. Homogeneity index and conformation number were two other evaluation parameters that were considered in this study. Collectively, the use of 6 MV photons was dosimetrically comparable with 10 MV photons in terms of target coverage, homogeneity, conformity, and OAR savings. While 10-MV plans showed a significant reduction in the number of MUs that varied between 4.2% and 16.6% (P-value = 0.0001) for the different cases compared to 6-MV. The percentage volumes of each patient receiving 2 Gy and 5 Gy were compared for the two energies. The general trend was that 6-MV plans had the highest percentage volume, (P-value = 0.0001, P-value = 0.006) respectively. 10-MV beams actually decreased the integral dose (from average 183.27 ± 152.38 Gy-Kg to 178.08 ± 147.71 Gy-Kg, P-value = 0.004) compared with 6-MV. In general, comparison of the above parameters showed statistically significant differences between 6-MV and 10-MV groups. Based on the present results, the 10-MV is the optimal energy for IMRT, regardless of the concerns about a potential risk of radiation-induced malignancies. It is recommended that the choice to treat at 10 MV be taken as a risk vs. benefit as the clinical significance remains to be determined on case by case basis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

I. Eldesoky, E. Attalla and W. Elshemey, "The Dosimetric Effects of Different Beam Energy on Physical Dose Distributions in IMRT Based on Analysis of Physical Indices," Journal of Cancer Therapy, Vol. 4 No. 11A, 2013, pp. 33-43. doi: 10.4236/jct.2013.411A005.

References

[1] M. J. Zelefsky, Y. Yamada, Z. Fuks, et al., “Long-Term Results of Conformal Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Impact of Dose Escalation on Biochemical Tumor Control and Distant Metastases-Free Survival Outcomes,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Vol. 71, No. 4, 2008, pp. 1028-1033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.11.066
[2] J. C. Chow, G. N. Grigorov, R. B. Barnett, “Study on Surface Dose Generated in Prostate Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Treatment,” Medical Dosimetry, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2006, pp. 249-258.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2005.07.002
[3] F. d’Errico, “Dosimetric Issues in Radiation Protection of Radiotherapy Patients,” Mathematics & Physical Sciences, Vol. 118, No. 2, 2006, pp. 205-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncl034
[4] M. Westermark, J. Arndt, B. Nilsson and A. Brahme, “Comparative Dosimetry in Narrow High-Energy Photon Beams,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2000, pp. 685-702.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/45/3/308
[5] E. J. Hall, “Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy, Protons, and the Risk of Secondary Cancers,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Vol. 65, No. 1, 2000, pp. 1-7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.01.027
[6] S. F. Kry, M. Salehpour, D. S. Followill, et al., “The Calculated Risk of Fatal Secondary Malignancies from Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Vol. 62, No. 4, 2005, pp. 1195-1203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.03.053
[7] A. Pirzkall, M. P. Carol, B. Pickett, P. Xia, M. Roach and L. J. Verhey, “The Effect of Beam Energy and Number of Fields on Photon-Based IMRT for Deep-Seated Targets,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Vol. 53, No. 2, 2002, pp. 434-442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02750-5
[8] J. Stein, R. Mohan, X. H. Wang, et al., “Number and Orientations of Beams in Intensity-Modulated Radiation Treatments,” Medical Physics, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1997, pp. 149-160. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1118/1.597923
[9] A. Van’t Riet, A. C. Mak and M. A. Moerland, “A Conformation Number to Quantify the Degree of Conformality in Brachytherapy and External Beam Irradiation: Application to the Prostate,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1997, pp. 731-736. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(96)00601-3
[10] H. Aoyama, D. C. Westerley, T. R. Mackie, et al., “Integral Radiation Dose to Normal Structures with Conformal External Beam Radiation,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Vol. 64, No. 3, 2006, pp. 962-967. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.11.005
[11] J. S. Laughlin, R. Mohan and G. J. Kutcher, “Choice of Optimum Megavoltage for Accelerators for Photon Beam Treatment,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Vol. 12, No. 9, 1986, pp. 1551-1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(86)90277-4
[12] I. Madani, B. Vanderstraeten, S. Bral, et al., “Comparison of 6 MV and 18 MV Photons for IMRT Treatment of Lung Cancer,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, Vol. 82, No. 1, 2007, pp. 63-69.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2006.11.016
[13] E. J. Hall and C. S. Wuu, “Radiation-Induced Second Cancer: The Impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2003, pp. 83-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(03)00073-7
[14] S. Thangavelu, S. Jayakumar, K. N. Govindarajan, S. S. Supe, V. Nagarajan and M. Nagarajan, “Influence of Photon Energy on the Quality of Prostate Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Plans Based on Analysis of Physical Indices,” Journal of Medical Physics, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2011, pp. 29-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0971-6203.75469
[15] M. Sun and L. Ma, “Treatments of Exceptionally Large Prostate Cancer Patients with Low-Energy Intensity-Modulated Photons,” Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2006, pp. 43-49.
[16] J. S. Welsh, T. R. Mackie and J. P. Limmer, “High-Energy Photons in IMRT: Uncertainties and Risks for Questionable Gain,” Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2007, pp. 147-149.
[17] S. F. D. Boer, Y. Kumek, W. Jaggernauth and M. B. Podgorsak, “The Effect of Beam Energy on the Quality of IMRT Plans for Prostate Conformal Radiotherapy,” Technology in Cancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2007, pp. 139-146.
[18] L. Wang, E. Yorke, G. Desobrya and C. S. Chui, “Dosimetric Advantage of Using 6 MV over 15 MV Photons in Conformal Therapy of Lung Cancer: Monte Carlo Studies in Patient Geometries,” Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 51-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/1.1432862
[19] G. Solaiappan, G. Singaravelu, A. Prakasarao, B. Rabbani and S. S. Supe, “Influence of Photon Beam Energy on IMRT Plan Quality for Radiotherapy of Prostate Cancer,” Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2009, pp. 18-31.
[20] M. Hussein, S. Aldridge, T. Guerrero Urbano and A. Nisbet, “The Effect of 6 and 15 MV on Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Prostate Cancer Treatment: Plan Evaluation, Tumour Control Probability and Normal Tissue Complication Probability Analysis, and the Theoretical Risk of Secondary Induced Malignancies,” British Journal of Radiology, Vol. 85, 2012, pp. 423-432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr/24514638
[21] J. M. Park, C. H. Choi, S. W. Ha and S. J. Ye, “The Dosimetric Effect of Mixed-Energy IMRT Plans for Prostate Cancer,” Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2011, p. 3563.
[22] W. Sung, J. M. Park, C. H. Choi, S. W. Ha and S. J. Ye, “The Effect of Photon Energy on Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Plans for Prostate Cancer,” Journal of Radiation Oncology, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2012, pp. 27-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.3857/roj.2012.30.1.27

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.