期刊
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH
卷 19, 期 4, 页码 843-852出版社
IJRR-IRANIAN JOURNAL RADIATION RES
DOI: 10.29242/ijrr.19.4.843
关键词
Prostate cancer; whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT); local radiotherapy (LRT); dosimetric parameters; radiobiological models
资金
- Tarbiat Modares University
The study compared three whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) procedures and two local radiotherapy (LRT) procedures for prostate cancer patients, showing the importance of considering a balance between dosimetric and radiobiological evaluation when selecting the appropriate treatment technique.
Background: Comparing three whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) procedures as well as two local radiotherapy (LRT) procedures with each other for the treatment of prostate cancer patients using dosimetric parameters and radiobiological models: tumor control probability (TCP), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and equivalent uniform dose (EUD). Materials and Methods: Two groups of prostate cancer patients underwent WPRT (n=16) and LRT (n=16) procedures. In the WPRT group, the patients treated with two intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT+IMRT) procedures at two consecutive phases. Then, two other techniques including a three dimensional (3D) conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) phase followed by an IMRT phase (3DCRT+IMRT) and also two consecutive 3DCRT procedures (3DCRT+3DCRT) were carried out on the patients' data. In the LRT group, the patients treated with just an IMRT technique. Then a 3DCRT technique was also performed on the patients' data. All the WPRT and LRT procedures compared with each other based on the dosimetric parameters and radiobiological models. Results: The mean of dosimetric parameters did not exceed the specified dose constraints for the bladder and femoral heads in the 3DCRT+ IMRT, and for the bladder in the 3DCRT technique. In the WPRT and LRT procedures, the TCP values for the prostate did not reveal any significant differences (P 0.05). The NTCP results in accordance with the dosimetric results for the organs at risk (OARs) showed a significant decrease in the IMRT+IMRT (WPRT) and the IMRT (LRT) techniques (P<0.05). However, the EUD results were dependent on the type of the procedure and OARs. Conclusion: For selecting the appropriate treatment technique for each prostate cancer patient, a compromise between the dosimetric and radiobiological evaluation of the WPRT and LRT procedures should be considered.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据