The study was designed to compare @entity499 ( @entity499 ) based IMRT and conventional sliding window (SW IMRT) in @entity1 with high risk @entity263 . @entity499 and SWIMRT were compared using DVH parameters. The @entity343 Prostate was prescribed 74 Gy in 37 fractions and the nodal @entity343 received 55 Gy in 37 fractions by simultaneous integrated boost. Conformity Index, Homogeneity Index and dose-volume parameters were compared. The conformity index (CI) of @entity499 (0.77, SD = 0.54) plans tended to be better (p = 0.069) compared to SWIMRT (0.70, SD = 0.01) for prostate @entity343 . CI for nodal @entity343 was similar. Helical tomotherapy plans were more homogeneous, with homogeneity index (HI) of 0.04 compared to 0.06 in SWIMRT (p = 0.018) for @entity343 prostate and HI of 0.06 and 0.15 (p = 0.025) for @entity343 nodes respectively. Median dose to bladder (p = 0.025) and rectum (p = 0.012) were less with @entity499 . However, @entity499 delivered a higher D10Gy and D1Gy to rectum and bladder overlap volumes as a consequence of achieving better homogeneity. Femoral heads were better spared with @entity499 plans (p = 0.012). @entity499 improves dose homogeneity, target coverage and conformity as compared to SWIMRT, with overall improvement in critical organ sparing.

Does helical tomotherapy improve dose conformity and normal tissue sparing compared to conventional IMRT? A dosimetric comparison in high risk XXXX .

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients'] @entity499 :: ('MESH:C536217', 'Disease') :: ['HT', 'Helical Tomotherapy', 'Complementary plans with HT'] @entity263 :: ('MESH:D011471', 'Disease') :: ['prostate cancer'] @entity343 :: ('187978', 'Species') :: ['PTV']
@entity263 :: (MESH:D011471,Disease) :: ['prostate cancer']
