Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:09:03.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Dose volume histogram analysis for organs at risk when using 6 external beam techniques for radical prostatic irradiation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 August 2006

T. Haycocks
Affiliation:
The Princess Margaret Hospital and The University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
J. Mui
Affiliation:
The Princess Margaret Hospital and The University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
H. Alasti
Affiliation:
The Princess Margaret Hospital and The University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
C. Catton
Affiliation:
The Princess Margaret Hospital and The University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Abstract

Ten patients with prostate cancer were each planned with 3 conventional and 3 conformal isocentric treatment techniques to compare the relative radiation doses to the bladder and rectal walls, and femoral head using dose volume histograms (DVH). The DVH were calculated for each organ and each technique, and the plans were ranked using the area under the curve method and also by the relative radiation dose given to specific normal tissue volumes.

The results show that for the planning target volume chosen, the 4 field non-coplanar technique delivers the least dose to the bladder, the 6 field coplanar technique delivers the least dose to the rectum and the 3 field oblique technique delivers the least dose to the femoral heads. The 4-field technique with no shielding contributes the most dose to the bladder and rectum and the 6 field coplanar technique contributes the most dose to the femoral heads.

No technique was shown to be optimal for all the organs at risk, but both the 6 field and 4 field non-coplanar field arrangements were shown to be superior techniques for minimising both the bladder and rectal dosage. The choice of technique will therefore depend on other factors such as the total prescribed dose, the ease of set-up and the ease of verification of isocentre reproducibility.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
2000 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)