Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy vs Conventional Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer
Author Information
Author(s): Gerald B Fogarty, Diana Ng, Guilin Liu, Lauren E Haydu, Nastik Bhandari
Primary Institution: Mater Hospital, Crows Nest, NSW, Australia
Hypothesis
Is Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) more efficient and cost-effective than conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IM) for prostate cancer treatment?
Conclusion
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (RA) is significantly more efficient, safe, and cost-effective than conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IM) for treating prostate cancer.
Supporting Evidence
- RA treatment had significantly lower average treatment staff costs per patient compared to IM.
- RA treatment resulted in shorter total beam times compared to IM.
- All RA and IM plans were acceptable according to local guidelines for dose constraints.
Takeaway
This study shows that a new way of giving radiation therapy called RapidArc is better than the old way because it saves time and money while keeping patients safe.
Methodology
The study analyzed 30 prostate cancer patients treated with RapidArc and compared their treatment times, costs, and toxicity with conventional IM and 3D conformal radiotherapy.
Limitations
The study was limited to a single center and a small sample size of patients.
Participant Demographics
All participants were prostate cancer patients treated at a single Australian center.
Statistical Information
P-Value
0.001
Confidence Interval
95% CI: $95.38-$253.11
Statistical Significance
p<0.001
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website