A method for increased dose conformity and segment reduction for SMLC delivered IMRT treatment of the prostate.

PURPOSE The focus of this work is to develop a practical planning method that results in increased dose conformity and reduced treatment time for segmental multileaf collimation (sMLC) based intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivery. METHODS AND MATERIALS Additional regions for dose constraint are introduced within the normal tissue during the planning process by designing a series of concentric ellipsoids around the target. A dose gradient is then defined by assigning dose constraints to each concentric region. The technique was tested at two centers and data for 26 and 10 patients, respectively, are presented allowing for differences in treatment technique, beam energy, ellipsoid definition, and prescription dose. At both centers, a series of patients previously treated for prostate cancer with IMRT were selected, and comparisons were made between the original and new plans. RESULTS While meeting target dose specifications and normal tissue constraints, the average number of beam directions decreased by 1.6 with a standard error (SE) of 0.1. The average time for delivery at center 1 decreased by 29.0% with an SE of 2.0%, decreasing from 17.5 min to 12.3 min. The average time for delivery at center 2 decreased by 29.9% with an SE of 3.8%, decreasing from 11 min to 7.7 min. The amount of nontarget tissue receiving D(100) decreased by 15.7% with an SE of 2.4%. Nontarget tissue receiving D(95), D(90), and D(50) decreased by 16.3, 15.1, and 19.5%, respectively, with SE values of approximately 2% at center 1. Corresponding values for D(100), D(95), D(90), and D(50) decreased by 13.5, 16.7, 17.1, and 5.1%, respectively, with SE values of less than 3% at center 2. CONCLUSION By designating subsets of tissue as concentric regions around the target(s) and carefully defining each region's dose constraints, we have gained an increased measure of control over the region outside the target boundaries. This increased control manifests as two distinct endpoints that are beneficial to the IMRT process: increased dose conformity and decreased treatment time.

[1]  E. Horwitz,et al.  Advantages of using noncoplanar vs. axial beam arrangements when treating prostate cancer with intensity-modulated radiation therapy and the step-and-shoot delivery method. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[2]  P Xia,et al.  Comparison of treatment plans involving intensity-modulated radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  Icru Prescribing, recording, and reporting photon beam therapy , 1993 .

[4]  B Pickett,et al.  Forward or inversely planned segmental multileaf collimator IMRT and sequential tomotherapy to treat multiple dominant intraprostatic lesions of prostate cancer to 90 Gy. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  T E Schultheiss,et al.  Beam characteristics of a retrofitted double-focused multileaf collimator. , 1998, Medical physics.

[6]  André Wambersie,et al.  The International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements , 2001, Journal of the ICRU.

[7]  D L McShan,et al.  Is uniform target dose possible in IMRT plans in the head and neck? , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[8]  T R Willoughby,et al.  Short-course intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer with daily transabdominal ultrasound localization of the prostate gland. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[9]  R. Mohan,et al.  Simultaneous integrated boost IMRT of advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas using dynamic multi-leaf collimators , 2001 .

[10]  B. Emami,et al.  Improvement of treatment plans developed with intensity-modulated radiation therapy for concave-shaped head and neck tumors. , 2002, Radiology.

[11]  D. Low,et al.  Differential dosing of prostate and seminal vesicles using dynamic multileaf collimation. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[12]  S. Webb,et al.  Potential role of intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of tumors of the maxillary sinus. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  T LoSasso,et al.  Treatment planning and delivery of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for primary nasopharynx cancer. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  M. Robinson,et al.  The role of intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of parotid tumors. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[15]  A. Hanlon,et al.  Dose selection for prostate cancer patients based on dose comparison and dose response studies. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  W. De Gersem,et al.  Radiotherapy of prostate cancer with or without intensity modulated beams: a planning comparison. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  E. B. Butler,et al.  Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer with the use of a rectal balloon for prostate immobilization: acute toxicity and dose-volume analysis. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[18]  T E Schultheiss,et al.  A comparison of daily CT localization to a daily ultrasound-based system in prostate cancer. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  D P Dearnaley,et al.  Reduction of small and large bowel irradiation using an optimized intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy technique in patients with prostate cancer. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[20]  George Starkschall,et al.  Prostate cancer radiation dose response: results of the M. D. Anderson phase III randomized trial. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.