Comparison of Dose Distribution to Target Volume and Organs at Risk using 3D CRT, IMRT, and VMAT Techniques in Glioblastoma Cases

Authors

  • Hamzah Fuadi  Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Semarang – Indonesia
  • Heri Sutanto  Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Semarang – Indonesia
  • Eko Hidayanto  Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Semarang – Indonesia
  • Zaenal Arifin  Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Semarang – Indonesia
  • Choirul Anam  Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Semarang – Indonesia
  • Siti Fairus  Department of Physics, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur – Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org//10.32628/IJSRST52310347

Keywords:

Radiotherapy, Three-Dimensional Radiation Therapy, PTV, CTV

Abstract

The average lifetime risk of secondary cancer after irradiating glioblastoma radiation therapy to healthy organs shows that the technique of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has a smaller risk of developing secondary cancer compared to intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and three-dimensional radiation therapy (3DCRT). Parameters of dose distribution, namely the target volume and dose received by the organs at risk (OAR), are used to compare these three techniques. The distribution of doses from TPS results in the form of DVH and isodose in the 3D CRT, IMRT, and VMAT techniques shows that the distribution of doses to healthy organs around the glioblastoma irradiation area is in the safe category and is still within tolerance limits. With VMAT, the PTV and CTV dose results were more optimal compared to the 3D CRT and IMRT techniques. 3D CRT showed a PTV dose value of 5551.8 cGy and a CTV of 5515.3 cGy. IMRT shows a PTV dose value of 6035.0 cGy and a CTV of 6018.8 cGy. VMAT shows PTV dose values of 6101.8 cGy and CTV of 6044.7 cGy. It can be seen that the distribution of doses to healthy organs in general in the VMAT technique is more optimal than the IMRT and 3D CRT techniques in protecting OAR.

References

  1. American Brain Tumor Association (ABTA). 2012. About Brain Tumors a. Primer for Patients and Caregivers. Chicago: ABTA. Pp. 76 – 78.
  2. Louis, D.N., Ohgaki, H., Wiestler, O.D., & Cavenee, W.K. 2007. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Central Nervous System. 4th ed. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer.
  3. Thakkar, J.P., Dolecek, T.A., Horbinski, C., Ostrom, Q.T., Lightner, D.D., Barnholtz-Sloan, J.S., & Villano, J.L. 2014. Epidemiologic and molecular prognostic review of glioblastoma. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.
  4. Wilson, T.A., Karajannis, M.A., & Harter, D.H. 2014. Glioblastoma multiforme: State of the art and future therapeutics. Surgical Neurology International, 5, 64–62.
  5. Podgorsak, E.B. Radiation Oncology Physics: A Handbook for Teachers and Students.
  6. Garibaldi, C., Jereczek-Fossa B.A., Marvaso, G., et al. 2017. Recent advances in radiation oncology. Ecancermedicalscience.
  7. Abdel-Wahab, M., Gondhowiardjo, S.S., Rosa, A.A., et al. 2021. Global Radiotherapy: Current Status and Future Directions—White Paper. JCO Glob Oncol;(7):827-842. doi:10.1200/go.21.00029
  8. Khan, M.F. 2014. The Physics of Radiation Therapy, The 4th edition, Lippincott Wiliams and Wilkins, New York.
  9. Barrett, A., Dobbs, J., Morris, S., & Roques, T. 2009. Practical Radiotherapy Planning. London.
  10. Mohan, R. 1997. Proceedings of the XIIth International Conference on the Use of Computers in Radiation Therapy, Salt Lake City.
  11. Kramme, R., & Hoffmann, K.F. 2011. RSP (Eds. Springer Handbook of Medical Technology.
  12. Van der Veen J., Laenen A., & Nuyts, S. 2017. Modern radiotherapy techniques versus three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
  13. Brady, L.W., Heilmann, H., Molls, M., & Nieder, C. 2012. Technical Basic of Radiation Therapy. Berlin: Springer.
  14. Allehyani, H.S. 2017. 3DCRT Versus RapidArc in Terms of Iso-Dose Distribution, Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) and Organs at Risk for Esophageal Cancer (EC) Dosimetric Study. American Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine;5(4):123.
  15. Funderud, M, & Tømmerås, V.K. 2017. Evaluation of Robustness in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plans for Head and Neck Cancer Patients.

International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology

Downloads

Published

2023-06-30

Issue

Volume 10, Issue 3, May-June-2023

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) IJSRST

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

[1]
Hamzah Fuadi, Heri Sutanto, Eko Hidayanto, Zaenal Arifin, Choirul Anam, Siti Fairus, " Comparison of Dose Distribution to Target Volume and Organs at Risk using 3D CRT, IMRT, and VMAT Techniques in Glioblastoma Cases, International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology(IJSRST), Online ISSN : 2395-602X, Print ISSN : 2395-6011, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp.847-851, May-June-2023. Available at doi : https://doi.org/10.32628/IJSRST52310347