<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p> New capabilities of biomedical accelerators allow for very precise depositing of the radiation dose and imaging verification during the therapy. In addition, computer algorithms calculating dose distributions are taking into account the increasing number of physical effects. Therefore, administration of high dose fractionation, which is consistent with radiobiology used in oncology, becomes safer and safer. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), which is very precise irradiation with high dose fractionation is increasingly widespread use in radiotherapy of prostate cancer. For this purpose different biomedical accelerators are used. The aim of this study is to compare dose distributions for two techniques: VMAT and CyberKnife. Statistical analysis was performed for the two groups of patients treated by VMAT technique (25 patients), and CyberKnife technique (15 patients). The analysis shows that the dose distributions are comparable, both in the treated area (prostate) and in the critical organs (rectum, urinary bladder, femoral heads). The results show that stereotactic radiosurgery of prostate cancer can be carried out on CyberKnife accelerator as well as on the classical accelerator with the use of VMAT technique.</p></abstract>

New capabilities of biomedical accelerators allow for very precise depositing of the radiation dose and imaging verification during the therapy. In addition, computer algorithms calculating dose distributions are taking into account the increasing number of physical effects. Therefore, administration of high dose fractionation, which is consistent with radiobiology used in oncology, becomes safer and safer. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), which is very precise irradiation with high dose fractionation is increasingly widespread use in radiotherapy of prostate cancer. For this purpose different biomedical accelerators are used. The aim of this study is to compare dose distributions for two techniques: VMAT and CyberKnife. Statistical analysis was performed for the two groups of patients treated by VMAT technique (25 patients), and CyberKnife technique (15 patients). The analysis shows that the dose distributions are comparable, both in the treated area (prostate) and in the critical organs (rectum, urinary bladder, femoral heads). The results show that stereotactic radiosurgery of prostate cancer can be carried out on CyberKnife accelerator as well as on the classical accelerator with the use of VMAT technique.

Stereotactic radiosurgery of prostate cancer – dose distribution for VMAT and CyberKnife techniques

Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology Gliwice Branch, Radiotherapy Planning Department

Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology Gliwice Branch, Radiotherapy Department

Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

New capabilities of biomedical accelerators allow for very precise depositing of the radiation dose and imaging verification during the therapy. In addition,...

Stereotactic radiosurgery of prostate cancer – dose distribution for VMAT and CyberKnife techniques

Publié en ligne: 02 juil. 2016

Pages: 35 - 40

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/pjmpe-2016-0007

Mots clés
CyberKnife, VMAT, stereotactic radiosurgery, coefficients of treatment plan evaluation

© Polish Society of Medical Physics

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Stereotactic radiosurgery of prostate cancer – dose distribution for VMAT and CyberKnife techniques

Publié en ligne: 02 juil. 2016

Pages: 35 - 40

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/pjmpe-2016-0007

Mots clésCyberKnife, VMAT, stereotactic radiosurgery, coefficients of treatment plan evaluation

© Polish Society of Medical Physics

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Mots clés
CyberKnife, VMAT, stereotactic radiosurgery, coefficients of treatment plan evaluation