Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Treatment Efficiency of 3D Conformal and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy

Recently, a lot of progress has been made in using radiation therapy to treat cancer. The two most common methods are 3D Conformal Radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT). Both ways try to give tumors the exact amount of radiation they need while causing as little damage as possible to good cells around them. In this study, the clinical results and treatment effectiveness of 3D-CRT and IMRT are compared in cancer patients with different types of radiation therapy. A historical cohort study included 120 patients from different hospitals. They were split into two groups, with one group getting 3D-CRT and the other IMRT. The main goals of the study were to compare the two groups in terms of tumor control rates, side effects from treatment, and overall survival (OS). The effectiveness of the treatment was also judged by looking at the total time needed for planning and carrying out the treatment, as well as the radiation doses given to both the tumor and healthy cells. Overall, our results showed that IMRT had better tumor control rates than 3D-CRT, with more cases of local control and fewer cases of cancer coming back at treatment sites. When compared to 3D-CRT, the IMRT group had a significantly lower rate of acute radiation-induced effects, such as skin discomfort and stomach problems. Because it can send out very directed radiation beams, IMRT was also linked to less damage to good organs around the tumor, like the spinal cord and lungs. IMRT, on the other hand, needs more complicated treatment planning and takes longer to give than 3D-CRT, which can make prices and resource use go up. Even so, IMRT's higher level of accuracy made it a clear winner when it came to controlling tumors and improving patients' quality of life.