Potential for dose escalation in the postprostatectomy setting with intensity-modulated radiation therapy: a dosimetric study using EORTC consensus guidelines for target volume contours

被引:11
|
作者
Harrison, Amy [1 ,2 ]
Studenski, Matthew [1 ,2 ]
Harvey, Arthur [1 ,2 ]
Trabulsi, Edouard J. [3 ,4 ]
Xiao, Ying [1 ,2 ]
Yu, Yan [1 ,2 ]
Dicker, Adam P. [1 ,2 ]
Showalter, Timothy N. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Jefferson Med Coll, Dept Radiat Oncol, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
[2] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Kimmel Canc Ctr, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
[3] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Jefferson Med Coll, Dept Urol, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
[4] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Kimmel Canc Ctr, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.prro.2010.10.005
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: Radiation therapy (RT) is delivered as adjuvant and salvage therapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Interest in dose escalation in this setting may necessitate more advanced RT techniques, such as intensity modulation. This study was designed to compare intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) planning. Methods: Twenty patients were identified who received post-radical prostatectomy RT with 4-field, 3DCRT plans to 68.4 Gy. Contours were revised to comply with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus guidelines. The IMRT plans with 5 versus 9 coplanar fields were compared for 10 patients. Then the 9-field IMRT plans were compared to 3DCRT in all 20 patients. Differences in dose-volume histogram values were evaluated using 2-tailed paired t tests. Cone beam computed tomographic images were analyzed to evaluate rectum doses in the treatment position during the RT course. The IMRT plans to 72.0 Gy were compared to 3DCRT to 68.4 Gy to be able to consider potential use in dose escalation. Results: The 9-field IMRT plans (vs 3DCRT) improved bladder mean dose and volume receiving 65 Gy or more (V65), as well as rectum mean dose (31.6 Gy vs 36.1 Gy; P b.001), volume receiving 75% or more of the prescription dose (24.4% vs 31.0%; P b.001), and V65 (10.5% vs 20.0%; P b.001). Advantages of IMRT were at the cost of small increases in maximum point doses delivered to the bladder and rectum. Cone beam computed tomographic images (n = 132) were analyzed for 8 patients; rectum mean dose and V65 were also improved by IMRT on these scans. IMRT allowed increasing dose to 72.0 Gy with similar bladder and rectum mean doses, V65, and V40 compared to 3DCRT to a total dose of 68.4 Gy. Conclusions: The IMRT improves dosimetric parameters for the rectum and bladder, which may allow dose escalation after radical prostatectomy. Future studies should determine whether these advantages translate into improved clinical outcomes for prostate cancer patients. (C) 2011 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:105 / 114
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Potential for Dose-escalation in the Post-prostatectomy Setting with Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy: A Dosimetric Study using EORTC Consensus Guidelines for Target Volume Contours
    Studenski, M. T.
    Harrison, A.
    Anamalayil, S.
    Harvey, A.
    Trabulsi, E.
    Xiao, Y.
    Yu, Y.
    Dicker, A. P.
    Showalter, T.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2010, 78 (03): : S387 - S387
  • [2] Potential for intensity-modulated radiation therapy to permit dose escalation for canine nasal cancer
    Vaudaux, Catherine
    Schneider, Uwe
    Kaser-Hotz, Barbara
    VETERINARY RADIOLOGY & ULTRASOUND, 2007, 48 (05) : 475 - 481
  • [3] A dosimetric analysis of dose escalation using two intensity-modulated radiation therapy techniques in locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma
    Brown, Michael W.
    Ning, Holly
    Arora, Barbara
    Albert, Paul S.
    Poggi, Matthew
    Camphausen, Kevin
    Citrin, Deborah
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2006, 65 (01): : 274 - 283
  • [4] Dose escalation for maxillary sinus cancer using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)
    Sheldon, JM
    Forster, KM
    Harrison, LB
    Woode, RR
    Lee, HJ
    Burman, CM
    Chui, CS
    Lutz, WR
    Spirou, SV
    Kutcher, GJ
    Fuks, ZY
    Leibel, SA
    Ling, CC
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 1997, 39 (02): : 237 - 237
  • [5] The potential for sparing neighbooring organs and escalation of dose with intensity-modulated radiation therapy in pancreatic carcinoma
    Senkessen, O.
    Kucucuk, H.
    Garipagaoglu, M.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2007, 84 : S196 - S196
  • [6] A dosimetric evaluation of dose escalation for the radical treatment of locally advanced vulvar cancer by intensity-modulated radiation therapy
    Bloemers, Monique C. W. M.
    Portelance, Lorraine
    Ruo, Russell
    Parker, William
    Souhami, Luis
    MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2012, 37 (03) : 310 - 313
  • [7] ICRU reference dose in an era of intensity-modulated radiation therapy clinical trials: Correlation with planning target volume mean dose and suitability for intensity-modulated radiation therapy dose prescription
    Yaparpalvi, Ravindra
    Hong, Linda
    Mah, Dennis
    Shen, Jin
    Mutyala, Subhakar
    Spierer, Marnee
    Garg, Madhur
    Guha, Chandan
    Kalnicki, Shalom
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2008, 89 (03) : 347 - 352
  • [8] The impact of intensity-modulated radiation therapy plan normalization in the postprostatectomy setting-does it matter?
    Stritch, Mary Anne
    Forde, Elizabeth
    Leech, Michelle
    MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2017, 42 (04) : 368 - 374
  • [9] Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a dosimetric study
    White, Peter
    Chan, Kit Chi
    Cheng, Ka Wai
    Chan, Ka Yiu
    Chau, Ming Chun
    JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH, 2013, 54 (03) : 532 - 545
  • [10] Improved Toxicity Profile Following High-Dose Postprostatectomy Salvage Radiation Therapy With Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy
    Goenka, Anuj
    Magsanoc, Juan Martin
    Pei, Xin
    Schechter, Michael
    Kollmeier, Marisa
    Cox, Brett
    Scardino, Peter T.
    Eastham, James A.
    Zelefsky, Michael J.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2011, 60 (06) : 1142 - 1148