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
  • [21] Dosimetric evaluation of a moving tumor target in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for lung cancer patients
    Sung Kyu Kim
    Min Kyu Kang
    Ji Woon Yea
    Se An Oh
    Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 2013, 63 : 67 - 70
  • [22] Dosimetric evaluation of a moving tumor target in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for lung cancer patients
    Kim, Sung Kyu
    Kang, Min Kyu
    Yea, Ji Woon
    Oh, Se An
    JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, 2013, 63 (01) : 67 - 70
  • [23] DOSIMETRIC COMPARISON OF HIGH-DOSE-RATE BRACHYTHERAPY AND INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIATION THERAPY AS A BOOST TO THE PROSTATE
    Hermesse, Johanne
    Biver, Sylvie
    Jansen, Nicolas
    Lenaerts, Eric
    Nickers, Philippi
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2010, 76 (01): : 269 - 276
  • [24] Dosimetric performance of an enhanced dose range radiographic film for intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance
    Olch, AJ
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2002, 29 (09) : 2159 - 2168
  • [25] Dosimetric comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for early-stage glottic cancers with and without the air cavity in the planning target volume
    Asher, David
    Amestoy, William
    Studenski, Matthew T.
    Samuels, Stuart E.
    Abramowitz, Matthew C.
    Freedman, Laura M.
    Elsayyad, Nagy
    Samuels, Michael A.
    MEDICAL DOSIMETRY, 2019, 44 (04) : 405 - 408
  • [26] Dosimetric evaluation of planning target volume margin reduction for prostate cancer via image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy
    Taejin Hwang
    Sei-Kwon Kang
    Kwang-Ho Cheong
    Soah Park
    Jai-Woong Yoon
    Taejin Han
    Haeyoung Kim
    Meyeon Lee
    Kyoung-Joo Kim
    Hoonsik Bae
    Tae-Suk Suh
    Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 2015, 67 : 129 - 135
  • [27] Dosimetric Evaluation of Planning Target Volume Margin Reduction for Prostate Cancer via Image-Guided Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy
    Hwang, Taejin
    Kang, Sei-Kwon
    Cheong, Kwang-Ho
    Park, Soah
    Yoon, Jai-Woong
    Han, Taejin
    Kim, Haeyoung
    Lee, Meyeon
    Kim, Kyoung-Joo
    Bae, Hoonsik
    Suh, Tae-Suk
    JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, 2015, 67 (01) : 129 - 135
  • [28] RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PELVIC ORGAN-AT-RISK DOSE AND CLINICAL TARGET VOLUME IN POSTPROSTATECTOMY PATIENTS RECEIVING INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIOTHERAPY
    Stanic, Sinisa
    Mathai, Mathew
    Cui, Jing
    Purdy, James A.
    Valicenti, Richard K.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2012, 82 (05): : 1897 - 1902
  • [29] Adequate target volume in total-body irradiation by intensity-modulated radiation therapy using helical tomotherapy: a simulation study
    Takenaka, Ryosuke
    Haga, Akihiro
    Yamashita, Hideomi
    Nakagawa, Keiichi
    JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH, 2017, 58 (02) : 210 - 216
  • [30] Dosimetric comparison between the prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using the planning target volume (PTV) dose-volume factor
    Chow, James C. L.
    Jiang, Runqing
    Kiciak, Alexander
    Markel, Daniel
    JOURNAL OF RADIOTHERAPY IN PRACTICE, 2016, 15 (03) : 263 - 268