Volume 5, Issue 4 (Multidisciplinary Cancer Investigation 2021)                   Multidiscip Cancer Investig 2021, 5(4): 1-7 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Afrin K T, Ahmad S. Clinical Differences Among Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy, Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy, and 3D- Conformal Radiation Therapy in Prostate Cancer: A Brief Review Study. Multidiscip Cancer Investig 2021; 5 (4) :1-7
URL: http://mcijournal.com/article-1-319-en.html
1- Department of Bio-medical Physics and Technology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh
2- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma, USA , salahuddin-ahmad@ouhsc.edu
Abstract:   (1593 Views)
The present study aimed at identifying monitor unit (MU), treatment time variations, volume coverage dissimilarity, and second tumor incidence among Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), and 3D-Conformal Radiation Therapy (3D-CRT), and treatment plans for prostate cancer based on literature review. A literature search was conducted on Pubmed/MEDLINE, BioMed Central (BMC)-part of Springer Nature, Google Scholar, and Insight Medical Publishing (iMED-Pub LTD) using the following keywords for filtering: 3D-CRT, IMRT, VMAT, Prostate Cancer, Conformity, and Homogeneity Index. IMRT was consisted of several treatment fields with different directions, hundreds of beamlets with modulated intensity, and an advantage over 3D-CRT, whereas VMAT had the advantage over IMRT due to rotating-beam utilization. VMAT usually required a longer dose optimization time and a rapid treatment, allowing patient comfort, reduced intra- fraction motion, and increased throughput compared to IMRT and 3D-CRT. VMAT has slightly better conformity and homogeneity with lower doses to normal tissue and MUs and treatment times compared to IMRT and 3D-CRT. Lower MUs reduce the risk of secondary malignancies. If target coverage and normal tissue sparing are comparable among different techniques, the risk of secondary malignancy should then be an important factor to choose the treatment modality.
Full-Text [PDF 256 kb]   (2549 Downloads)    
Select article type: Review Article | Subject: Health Services, Quality of Life and Outcomes
Received: 2021/05/30 | Accepted: 2021/08/30 | ePublished: 2021/12/28

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Multidisciplinary Cancer Investigation

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb