The effect of beam energy and number of fields on photon-based IMRT for deep-seated targets.

PURPOSE To examine the influence of energy and number of beams on nontarget dose when using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to treat deep-seated targets. METHODS AND MATERIALS Ten patients with prostate cancer (36-226 cc) treated locally to 75.6 Gy were studied. IMRT plans were created for 6-, 10-, and 18-MV photons using 4, 6, 9, and 11 coplanar nonopposed fields. Plans, normalized to cover 95% of the target volume, were analyzed using: (a) conformity index (CI) at 105%, 100%, 95%, 90%, 80%, 70%, 50% of prescribed dose; (b) prescription isodose line (PI); (c) minimum dose to target (Tar(min)); (d) maximum dose to tissue (Tis(max)); (e) dose to rectum/bladder/penis bulb; (f) integral nontarget dose (ID). Because CI evaluates dose independent of location, tissue also was divided into "near region" (NR: 1-cm-thick shell surrounding target) and "far region" (FR: tissue minus NR) volumes that were evaluated at the same levels as CI. RESULTS The target and sensitive structure metrics were the same for all plans. However, although there was little difference in NR volume exposed to dose, regardless of energy or number of fields, there was a significant increase in FR volume exposed to dose, at all levels, for low energy/few field plans compared to high energy/many fields (e.g., > 50 cc >or= 65 Gy). This effect disappeared with >or= 9 fields regardless of energy. CONCLUSION With IMRT, the use of 6 MV photons with less than 9 fields may result in an increase in dose in regions distant from the target volume (e.g., near the skin surface), even though the CI and sensitive structure metrics may indicate good conformance of high dose to the target volume itself. The clinical significance of this increased dose distant from the target, in terms of complications, remains to be determined.

[1]  E B Podgorsak,et al.  X-ray depth doses from linear accelerators in the energy range from 10 to 32 Mev. , 1975, The American journal of roentgenology, radium therapy, and nuclear medicine.

[2]  J. Diamond,et al.  The need for complex technology in radiation oncology. Correlations of facility characteristics and structure with outcome , 1985, Cancer.

[3]  Steve Webb,et al.  Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy , 1996, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  A. Markoe,et al.  Preliminary report of toxicity following 3D radiation therapy for prostate cancer on 3DOG/RTOG 9406. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  K. Kase,et al.  Higher energy: is it necessary, is it worth the cost for radiation oncology? , 1992, Medical physics.

[6]  J. S. Laughlin,et al.  Comparison of dose distributions in patients treated with x-ray beams of widely different energies. , 1952, Radiology.

[7]  S. Söderström,et al.  Aspects on the optimal photon beam energy for radiation therapy. , 1999, Acta oncologica.

[8]  L. Verhey,et al.  Comparison of radiosurgery treatment modalities based on complication and control probabilities. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[9]  J. S. Laughlin,et al.  Choice of optimum megavoltage for accelerators for photon beam treatment. , 1986, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.