Nasr, A., Elawady, R. (2016). Dosimetric Comparison of 3D Conformal Conventional Radiotherapy versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy both in Conventional and High Dose Radiation for Prostate Carcinoma. Research in Oncology, 12(1), 10-14. doi: 10.21608/resoncol.2016.588
Azza Nasr; Rasha Elawady. "Dosimetric Comparison of 3D Conformal Conventional Radiotherapy versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy both in Conventional and High Dose Radiation for Prostate Carcinoma". Research in Oncology, 12, 1, 2016, 10-14. doi: 10.21608/resoncol.2016.588
Nasr, A., Elawady, R. (2016). 'Dosimetric Comparison of 3D Conformal Conventional Radiotherapy versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy both in Conventional and High Dose Radiation for Prostate Carcinoma', Research in Oncology, 12(1), pp. 10-14. doi: 10.21608/resoncol.2016.588
Nasr, A., Elawady, R. Dosimetric Comparison of 3D Conformal Conventional Radiotherapy versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy both in Conventional and High Dose Radiation for Prostate Carcinoma. Research in Oncology, 2016; 12(1): 10-14. doi: 10.21608/resoncol.2016.588
Dosimetric Comparison of 3D Conformal Conventional Radiotherapy versus Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy both in Conventional and High Dose Radiation for Prostate Carcinoma
1The Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
2Department of Radiotherapy & Nuclear Medicine, National Cancer Institute, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
Abstract
Background: Radiotherapy plays an important role in the management of prostate cancer. There are ongoing efforts to deliver the optimum radiation dose to the prostate while minimizing it to at risk pelvic structures. Aim: To compare the dose coverage of planning target volume (PTV) and organs-at-risk (OAR) between intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and conventional three dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for the same plan of prostate cancer patients in both conventional dose and high dose. Methods: Plans of 15 prostate cancer patients with low- or intermediate risk, treated by 3D-CRT, were compared with IMRT to the same dose and to a higher dose. We used XIO- treatment planning system for 3D-CRT and Monaco treatment planning system for IMRT. Results: Mean and minimum dose to PTV were equal, but the mean maximum dose was significantly higher in IMRT (72Gy) than 3D-CRT. Doses to critical organs in IMRT plans were lower than 3D-CRT, even in the increased dose of 80Gy. Conclusion: IMRT is recommended as the standard of care in treatment of prostate carcinoma. Applying escalated dose is recommended.
View on SCiNiTO
Top