Background: Three radiotherapy treatment planning (RTTP) protocols for definitive external-beam radiation for localized prostate cancer, designed and clinically applied at Kyoto University, were compared.
Methods: Treatment plans were created according to three different RTTP protocols (old three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy [3D-CRT], new 3D-CRT, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy [IMRT]) on computed tomography (CT) data sets of five patients with localized prostate cancer. The dynamic-arc conformal technique was used in the 3D-CRT protocols. Differences in dose distribution were evaluated and compared based on dose-volume histogram (DVH) analyses.
Results: The coverage of the clinical target volume (= prostate alone) was comparable among the three RTTP protocols. However, the average values for the percent volume that received at least 95% of the prescription dose (V95), the percent of the prescription dose covering 95% of the volume (D95), and the conformity index of the planning target volume (PTV) were 99%, 97%, and 0.88 for the IMRT; 93.9%, 94.5%, and 0.76 for the new 3D-CRT; and 59.6%, 82.9%, and 0.6 for the old 3D-CRT protocol, respectively. Inhomogeneity of doses to the PTV was larger with the IMRT protocol than with the new 3D-CRT protocol. Doses to both the rectal wall and bladder wall were almost comparable with the new 3D-CRT and IMRT protocols, but were lower with the old 3D-CRT protocol, due to the lowest prescription dose and incomplete dose coverage of the PTV.
Conclusion: The old 3D-CRT protocol could not achieve the goals for the PTV set in the IMRT protocol. The new 3D-CRT and IMRT protocols were generally comparable in terms of both the PTV coverage and normal tissue-sparing, although the IMRT protocol achieved the most conformal dose distribution to the PTV, in return for a larger, but acceptable, dose inhomogeneity.