Oh, C.E., Antes, K., Darby, M., Song, S. and Starkschall, G. (1999) Comparison of 2D Conventional, 3D Conformal, and Intensity-Modulated Treatment Planning Techniques for Patients with Prostate Cancer with Regard to Target-Dose Homogeneity and Dose to Critical, Uninvolved Structures. Medical Dosimetry, 24, 255-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-3947(99)00030-8

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Dosimetric Evaluation of Treatment Plans of 3DCRT & IMRT in Prostate Cancer EBRT

  AUTHORS: Abdur Rehman, Muhammad Kamran Rasheed Nasir, Nouman Amjad, Babar Hussain

  KEYWORDS: 3DCRT, 6MV & 15MV, IMRT, PO, PSV, PTV, OARs

  JOURNAL NAME: Open Access Library Journal, Vol.9 No.12, December 30, 2022

  ABSTRACT: This study aims to compare 3DCRT & IMRT plans for two groups of prostate cancer patients i.e. “Prostate Only (PO) group” means the planning target volume includes the prostate & a margin of 1 cm from all sides except 0.6 cm from the posterior side & “Prostate + Seminal Vesicles (PSV) group” means the PTV includes Prostate & Seminal Vesicles surrounded with a margin of 1 cm from all sides except 0.6 cm from the posterior side. Total of 17 patients has been studied. Among them, 9 patients belong to PO group and 8 patients are in PSV group. In this study, 5 beams plan is used for 3DCRT planning while 7 beams plan is used for IMRT planning. This study declares the superiority of IMRT against 3DCRT technique in both PO & PSV groups. The conformity of PTV achieved in IMRT is much more than 3DCRT, while IMRT lags 3DCRT in dose homogeneity to PTV. Also, in IMRT, the OARS are safer than in 3DCRT. 3DCRT planning is done with Prowess Panther and IMRT planning with KonRad.