open access

Vol 6, No 1 (2001)
Untitled
Published online: 2001-01-01
Submitted:
Get Citation

10. The comparison between the three – field and four-field techniques of planning of radiotherapy in prostate cancer

P. Milecki, T. Piotrowski, M. Dymnicka, J. Malicki, G. Stryczyńska
DOI: 10.1016/S1507-1367(01)70380-X
·
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2001;6(1):31.

open access

Vol 6, No 1 (2001)
Untitled
Published online: 2001-01-01
Submitted:

Abstract

Purpose

evaluation 3-field(3F) and 4-field(4F) planning techiniques for patients with localized prostate cancer. Materials/methods: Five patients with prostate cancer (T3N0M0) were evaluated. CT images were obtained at 5 mm increments and were transferred to CadPlan_planning_workstation. The planning target volume (PTV) was defined as prostate and seminal vesicles with 15mm margins around clinical target volume (CTV) except prostate-rectum interface where 5 mm margin was applied. CTV was defined as prostate and seminal vesicles. Following organs at risk (OAR) were outlined: rectum, bladder, right femoral head. Following 3F and 4F plans were performed: 3F with angles (0deg-120deg-240deg; 0deg-90deg-270deg) and 4F (Odeg-90deg-180deg-270deg). We also created two versions of treatment plans including of energy; 6 MV and 20 MV for Clinac2300CD. Total dose was 74 Gy. Mean total doses of thirty plans in irradiated organs at risk (rectum, bladder and righ femoral head) were compared. For PTV mean and minimum dose were criteria for comparision of treatment plans. Results: There were no significant dose differenes between evaluated plans of treatment in PTV (0.05). Because mean dose in femoral head in each treatment plan was below tolerance dose, main dose-limiting organ was rectum and bladder. Lowest mean dose 42.7 Gy in rectum was achived by application of 3F technique of 20 MV(0deg-90deg-270deg). Bladder was also spared with the same 3F technique of 20 MV, where mean dose was 45.2 Gy. Conclusions: This study showed that the, T” three-field technique (an anterior and two opposing lateral fields) provided with 20 MV is optimal and assures the lowest rectal dose.

Abstract

Purpose

evaluation 3-field(3F) and 4-field(4F) planning techiniques for patients with localized prostate cancer. Materials/methods: Five patients with prostate cancer (T3N0M0) were evaluated. CT images were obtained at 5 mm increments and were transferred to CadPlan_planning_workstation. The planning target volume (PTV) was defined as prostate and seminal vesicles with 15mm margins around clinical target volume (CTV) except prostate-rectum interface where 5 mm margin was applied. CTV was defined as prostate and seminal vesicles. Following organs at risk (OAR) were outlined: rectum, bladder, right femoral head. Following 3F and 4F plans were performed: 3F with angles (0deg-120deg-240deg; 0deg-90deg-270deg) and 4F (Odeg-90deg-180deg-270deg). We also created two versions of treatment plans including of energy; 6 MV and 20 MV for Clinac2300CD. Total dose was 74 Gy. Mean total doses of thirty plans in irradiated organs at risk (rectum, bladder and righ femoral head) were compared. For PTV mean and minimum dose were criteria for comparision of treatment plans. Results: There were no significant dose differenes between evaluated plans of treatment in PTV (0.05). Because mean dose in femoral head in each treatment plan was below tolerance dose, main dose-limiting organ was rectum and bladder. Lowest mean dose 42.7 Gy in rectum was achived by application of 3F technique of 20 MV(0deg-90deg-270deg). Bladder was also spared with the same 3F technique of 20 MV, where mean dose was 45.2 Gy. Conclusions: This study showed that the, T” three-field technique (an anterior and two opposing lateral fields) provided with 20 MV is optimal and assures the lowest rectal dose.

Get Citation
About this article
Title

10. The comparison between the three – field and four-field techniques of planning of radiotherapy in prostate cancer

Journal

Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy

Issue

Vol 6, No 1 (2001)

Pages

31

Published online

2001-01-01

DOI

10.1016/S1507-1367(01)70380-X

Bibliographic record

Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2001;6(1):31.

Authors

P. Milecki
T. Piotrowski
M. Dymnicka
J. Malicki
G. Stryczyńska

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: journals@viamedica.pl