Effect of a hydrogel spacer on the intrafractional prostate motion during CyberKnife treatment for prostate cancer

Injection of hydrogel spacer increased maximal intrafractional prostate motion in anterior and superior directions during volumetric modulated arc therapy-stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Background

The aim of this study was to clarify the association between intrafractional prostate shift and hydrogel spacer.

Methods

Thirty-eight patients who received definitive volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer with prostate motion monitoring in our institution in 2018–2019 were retrospectively evaluated. In order to move the rectum away from the prostate, hydrogel spacer (SpaceOAR system, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, the United States) injection was proposed to the patients as an option in case of meeting the indication of use. We monitored intrafractional prostate motion by using a 4-dimensional (4D) transperineal ultrasound device: the Clarity 4D ultrasound system (Elekta AB). The deviation of the prostate was monitored in each direction: superior-inferior, left–right, and anterior–posterior. We also calculated the vector length. The maximum intrafractional displacement (MID) per fraction for each direction was detected and mean of MIDs was calculated per patient. The MIDs in the non-spacer group and the spacer group were compared using the unpaired t-test.

Results

We reviewed 33 fractions in eight patients as the spacer group and 148 fractions in 30 patients as the non-spacer group. The superior MID was 0.47 ± 0.07 (mean ± SE) mm versus 0.97 ± 0.24 mm (P = 0.014), the inferior MID was 1.07 ± 0.11 mm versus 1.03 ± 0.25 mm (P = 0.88), the left MID was 0.74 ± 0.08 mm versus 0.87 ± 0.27 mm (P = 0.55), the right MID was 0.67 ± 0.08 mm versus 0.92 ± 0.21 mm (P = 0.17), the anterior MID was 0.45 ± 0.06 mm versus 1.16 ± 0.35 mm (P = 0.0023), and the posterior MID was 1.57 ± 0.17 mm versus 1.37 ± 0.22 mm (P = 0.56) in the non-spacer group and the spacer group, respectively. The max of VL was 2.24 ± 0.19 mm versus 2.89 ± 0.62 mm (P = 0.19), respectively.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that maximum intrafractional prostate motion during VMAT-SBRT was larger in patients with hydrogel spacer injection in the superior and anterior directions. Since this difference seemed not to disturb the dosimetric advantage of the hydrogel spacer, we do not recommend routine avoidance of the hydrogel spacer use.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy using a hydrogel spacer for localized prostate cancer: A dosimetric comparison between tomotherapy with the newly-developed tumor-tracking system and cyberknife

Purpose

With a new tumor‐tracking system (Synchrony®) for tomotherapy (Radixact®), the internal and set‐up margins can be tightened, like cyberknife (CyberKnife®), in the planning of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer. Recently, the usefulness of placing a hydrogel spacer between the prostate and rectum has been established in prostate radiotherapy. We evaluated the characteristics of tomotherapy plans with the tumor‐tracking system and compared them with cyberknife SBRT plans for localized prostate cancer using a hydrogel spacer.

Methods

In 20 patients, two plans were created and compared using tomotherapy and cyberknife. All patients underwent hydrogel spacer injection behind the prostate before simulation CT and MRI for fusion. For all plans, 36.25 Gy in 7.25‐Gy fractions for a minimum coverage dose of 95% of planning target volume (PTV) (D95%) was prescribed. The D99% of PTV and D0.1 ml of the PTV, urethra, bladder, and rectum were intended to be > 90%, 110–130%, 100–110%, <110%, and <100%, respectively, of the prescribed doses.

Results

All plans using tomotherapy and cyberknife achieved the intended dose constraints. The cyberknife plans yielded better median PTV‐V110% (volume of PTV covered by 110% isodose line, 54.8%), maintaining lower median D0.1 ml of the urethra (37.5 Gy) and V80% of the bladder (11.0 ml) compared to the tomotherapy plans (39.0%; p < 0.0001, 38.2 Gy; p < 0.0001, and 18.3 ml; p < 0.0001, respectively). The tomotherapy plans were superior to the cyberknife plans for the rectum (V80% = 0.4 vs. 1.0 ml, p < 0.001; D1ml = 26.4 vs. 29.0 Gy, p = 0.013).

Conclusions

Our results suggested that tomotherapy with the tumor‐tracking system has reasonable potential for SBRT for localized prostate cancer using a hydrogel spacer.