Evaluating dosimetric outcomes: a comparison of CyberKnife, VMAT FFF, and Helical Tomotherapy Radixact for treating localized prostate cancer

TL;DR

This study compares three radiotherapy techniques for prostate cancer, finding that CyberKnife offers better dose conformity while VMAT FFF and Helical Tomotherapy are efficient alternatives.

Contribution

The study provides a comparative dosimetric analysis of three SBRT techniques for prostate cancer, highlighting their strengths in different clinical scenarios.

Findings

CyberKnife demonstrated superior dose conformity compared to VMAT FFF and Helical Tomotherapy.

VMAT FFF achieved shorter treatment times, making it efficient for localized prostate cancer treatment.

Helical Tomotherapy and VMAT FFF are viable alternatives for centers without CyberKnife systems.

Abstract

Prostate cancer (PCa) remains one of the most frequently diagnosed malignancies in men globally, ranking second in prevalence, with increasing incidence anticipated due to aging populations. Radiotherapy has emerged as a cornerstone treatment for localized PCa with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and it offers a promising approach by delivering highly conformal high-dose radiation in fewer fractions. This study compares the dosimetric outcomes of three SBRT techniques—CyberKnife (CK), Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy with flattening filter-free mode (VMAT FFF), and Helical Tomotherapy Radixact (HT)—for localized PCa. The investigation evaluates dose distribution characteristics, sparing of organs at risk (OARs), and treatment delivery efficiency. Two patient groups with low-to-intermediate-risk localized PCa treated at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori—IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale were included. Treatment plans for CK, VMAT FFF, and HT were retrospectively generated and analyzed using dosimetric metrics such as Conformity Index (CI), Homogeneity Index (HI), Gradient Index, and dose–volume constraints for OARs. Results revealed comparable target coverage across all techniques, with CK demonstrating superior dose conformity and VMAT FFF achieving shorter treatment times. HT and VMAT FFF are effective alternatives, particularly for centers without access to CK systems, though CK offered advantages in challenging anatomical scenarios. Findings emphasize the feasibility of VMAT FFF and HT as viable options for expanding SBRT accessibility, enabling high-quality treatment delivery in diverse clinical settings.

Figures