Comparing 3-, 4- and 6-fields techniques for conformal irradiation of prostate and seminal vesicles using dose-volume histograms.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Comparing some isocentric coplanar techniques for conformal irradiation of prostate and seminal vesicles. MATERIALS AND METHODS Five conformal techniques have been considered: (A) a 3-fields technique with an antero-posterior (AP) field and two lateral (LAT-LAT) 30 degrees wedged fields; (B) a 3-fields technique with an AP field and two oblique posterior (OBL) 15 degrees wedged fields with relative weights of 0.8, 1 and 1, respectively; (C) a 4-fields technique (AP-PA and LAT-LAT); (D) a 6-fields technique (LAT-LAT and four OBL at gantry angles 45 degrees, 135 degrees, 235 degrees and 315 degrees) with all the fields having the same weight; (E) the same 6-fields technique with lateral fields double-weighted with respect to the oblique fields. The conformal plans have been simulated on 12 consecutive patients (stages B and C) by using our 3D treatment planning system (Cadplan 2.7). The contours of the rectum, the bladder and the left femoral head were outlined together with the clinical target volume (CTV) which included the prostate and the seminal vesicles. A margin of 10 mm was added to define the planning target volume (PTV) through automatic volume expansion. Then a 7 mm margin between the PTV and block edges was added to take the beam penumbra into account. Dose distributions were normalised to the isocentre and the reference dose was considered to be 95% of the isocentre dose. Dose-volume histograms and dose statistics of the rectum, the bladder and the left femoral head were collected for all plans. For the rectum and the bladder the mean dose (Dm) and the fraction of volume receiving a dose higher than the reference dose (V95) were compared. For the femoral head, the mean dose together with the fraction of volume receiving a dose higher than 50% (V50) were compared. RESULTS Differences among the techniques have been found for all three considered organs at risk. When considering the rectum, technique A is better than the others both when considering Dm and V95 (P = 0.002), while technique D is the worst when considering Dm (P < 0.002) and is also worse than techniques A, E (P = 0.002) and C (P = 0.003) when considering V95. Technique E is the best when considering the bladder mean dose (P = 0.002 against A and D, P < 0.01 against B and C) and technique C is the worst (P < 0.012). No relevant differences were found for the bladder V95. In the femoral heads, techniques A and E are worse than B, C and D (P < 0.003) when considering Dm and V50. Moreover, techniques B and D are better than C (P < 0.004) when considering V50. CONCLUSIONS There is no technique that is absolutely better than the others. Technique A gives the best sparing of the rectum; the bladder is better spared with technique E. These results are reached with a worse sparing of the femoral heads which should be carefully taken into account.