Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 16, 2026
Radiation Planning Assistant - A Web-based Tool to Support High-quality Radiotherapy in Clinics with Limited Resources
Published on: October 6, 2023
An evaluation of three-field coplanar plans for conformal radiotherapy of prostate cancer
V S Khoo1, J L Bedford, S Webb
1The Academic Unit of Radiotherapy and Oncology, The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Trust, Downs Road, Sutton, Surrey, UK.
Background And Purpose:
A series of coplanar three-field configurations for two different clinical treatment volumes, prostate only (PO) and prostate plus seminal vesicles (PSV) were studied to determine the optimal three-field plan arrangement for prostate radiotherapy.
Materials And Methods:
A variety of conformal three-field 6 MV plans prescribed to both 64 and 74 Gy were created for PO and PSV volumes in each of ten patients. For description, the orientation of each sequential beam was named in a clockwise fashion. Plans included series with arrangements of 0 degrees, 60-150 degrees, 210-300 degrees; 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 225-255 degrees; 90 degrees, 210-240 degrees, 300-330 degrees and a four-field (4F) box plan for comparison. Six-hundred and eighty plans were compared using the rectal volume irradiated to greater than 50% (V(50)), 80% (V(80)), and 90% (V(90)) of the prescribed dose, normal tissue complications (NTCP) for rectum, bladder, and femoral heads (FH), and tumour control probabilities (TCP). FH tolerance was set at 52 Gy to 10% volume.
Results:
In comparing the 34 different three-field configurations for each of the PO and PSV groups, the greatest rectal sparing was achieved by a three-field plan with gantry angles of 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees (PO: rectal V(80)=22.8+/-5.5% (1S.D.), V(90)=18.4+/-5.7%, and PSV: rectal V(80)=41.9+/-5.8%, V(90)=35.5+/-5.9%). This also improved on the 4F-box plan (PO: rectal V(80)=26.0+/-5.8%, V(90)=21.4+/-5.2%, P<0.001; and PSV: rectal V(80)=47.3+/-5.5%, V(90)=41.6+/-5.1%, P<0.001). The worst rectal sparing was seen with the 0 degrees, 120 degrees, 240 degrees plan (PO: rectal V(80)=35.2+/-8.0%, V(90)=30.3+/-7.1%, P<0.001; and PSV: rectal V(80)=65.7+/-9.0%, V(90)=58.8+/-8.8%, P<0.001). In the PO group, the increase in predicted rectal NTCP with dose escalation from 64 to 74 Gy was 3.3% using the 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees plan, 4.7% with the 4F-box plan, and 6.9% with the 0 degrees, 120 degrees, 240 degrees plan. In the PSV group, dose escalation increased the predicted rectal NTCP by 7.9, 10.1 and 15.7% for the 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees plan, 4F-box plan, and 0 degrees, 120 degrees, 240 degrees plan, respectively.
Conclusions:
For both PO and PSV volumes, the three-field plan which afforded the greatest rectal sparing with acceptable bladder and femoral head doses was the 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 270 degrees plan. This plan also improved on the 4F-box. The increase in predicted rectal NTCP when escalating dose from 64 to 74 Gy was smaller using this plan compared to either the three-field 0 degrees, 120 degrees, 240 degrees plan or the 4F-box plan.
