Bilateral arcs using "averaged beam's eye views": a simplified technique for delivering 3-D based conformal radiotherapy

Forward-planning intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique for prostate cancer

In this study, we present an intensity‐modulated radiotherapy technique based on forward planning dose calculations to provide a concave dose distribution to the prostate and seminal vesicles by means of modified dynamic arc therapy (M‐DAT). Dynamic arcs (350 degrees) conforming to the beam's eye view of the prostate and seminal vesicles while shielding the rectum, combined with two lateral oblique conformal fields (15 degrees with respect to laterals) fitting the prostate only, were applied to deliver doses of 78 Gy and 61.23 Gy in 39 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles respectively. Dynamic wedges (45 degrees of thick end, anteriorly oriented) were used with conformal beams to adjust the dose homogeneity to the prostate, although in some cases, hard wedges (30 degrees of thick part, inferiorly oriented) were used with arcs to adjust the dose coverage to the seminal vesicles. The M‐DAT was applied to 10 patients in supine and 10 patients in prone positioning to determine the proper patient positioning for optimum protection of the rectum. The M‐DAT was compared with the simplified intensity‐modulated arc therapy (SIMAT) technique, composed of three phases of bilateral dynamic arcs. The mean rectal dose in M‐DAT for prone patients was 22.5±5.1 Gy; in M‐DAT and SIMAT for supine patients, it was 30.2±5.1 Gy and 39.4±6.0 Gy respectively. The doses to 15%, 25%, 35%, and 50% of the rectum volume in M‐DAT for prone patients were 44.5±10.2 Gy, 33.0±8.2 Gy, 25.3±6.4 Gy, and 16.3±5.6 Gy respectively. These values were lower than those in M‐DAT and in SIMAT for supine patients by 7.7%, 18.2%, 22.4%, and 28.5% and by 25.0%, 32.1%, 34.9%, and 41.9% of the prescribed dose (78 Gy) respectively. Ion chamber measurements showed good agreement of the calculated and measured isocentric dose (maximum deviation of 3.5%). Accuracy of the dose distribution calculation was evaluated by film dosimetry using a gamma index, allowing 3% dose variation and 4 mm distance to agreement as the individual acceptance criteria in prostate and seminal vesicle levels alike for all supine and prone patients. We found that fewer than 10% of the pixels in the dose distribution of the calculated area of 10×10−cm failed the acceptance criteria. These pixels were observed mainly in the low‐dose regions, particularly at the level of the seminal vesicles.

In conclusion, the single‐phase M‐DAT technique with patients in the prone position was found to provide the intended coverage of the prescribed doses to the prostate and seminal vesicles with improved protection for the rectum. Accordingly, M‐DAT has replaced non‐modulated conformal radiotherapy or SIMAT as the standard treatment for prostate cancer in our department.

PACS number: 87.53.Tf

Dose distribution in 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Comparison of two treatment techniques (six coplanar fields and two dynamic arcs)

PURPOSE

To compare dose distribution for two techniques of 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (RT): 6-field technique (6F) and 2-dynamic arc therapy (2DA).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Thirty nonmetastatic prostate cancer patients were included. In each patient, two treatment plans were prepared: with six coplanar fields (45 degrees , 90 degrees , 135 degrees , 225 degrees , 270 degrees , 315 degrees ) and with two dynamic lateral 100 degrees -wide arcs (40-140 degrees , 220-320 degrees ). Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were computed and mean area under curve (AUC) values were calculated for the DVHs of Planning Target Volume (PTV), rectum, urinary bladder and femoral heads. Doses given to 30% of rectum (DR(30)), to 60% of rectum (DR(60)), to 50% of bladder (DB(50)), to 50% of femoral head (DF(50)) and to 95% of PTV (DPTV(95)) were reported as a percentage of the total dose.

RESULTS

Mean DR(30) and DR(60) for 6F and 2DA were 75.8%, 51.5% and 72.2%, 37.2%, respectively. Mean DB(50) for 6F and 2DA were 68% and 64.2%, respectively. Mean right DF(50) for 6F and 2DA were 35.4% and 45.5%, respectively. Mean DPTV(95) for 6F and 2DA were 99% and 99.2%, respectively. Mean AUCs of DVHs of rectum and urinary bladder were significantly higher for 6F (this was more evident for small PTV and in the intermediate dose range). Mean AUC of DVHs of PTV and femoral heads were significantly higher for 2DA.

CONCLUSIONS

Both 6F and 2DA offer good dose distribution for PTV. 2DA allows for significantly better sparing of rectum and urinary bladder with slightly worse femoral head dose distribution. Further study is warranted in order to establish the clinical relevance of these differences.

Simplified intensity-modulated arc therapy for dose escalated prostate cancer radiotherapy

Simplified intensity-modulated arc therapy (SIMAT) employs forward planned, conformal, and avoidance arc combinations with dynamic multileaf collimation (MLC) as a simpler alternative to other forms of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). In this work, we compare SIMAT with 4-field (4F) and 6-field (6F) 3D conformal radiation therapy (CRT) for prostate cancer treatment. Prostate, seminal vesicle, bladder, and rectum were contoured on the CT images of 10 patients being planned for radiotherapy. Two planning target volumes (PTV) were defined: PTV1 (prostate + seminal vesicles + 1.0-cm margin) and PTV2 (prostate + 1.0-cm margin). SIMAT, 4F, and 6F plans were generated with a prescription dose of 78 Gy to prostate and 54 Gy to the seminal vesicles. Differences in the 3 techniques in terms of target and rectal coverage were compared. In addition, dose distributions of the SIMAT plans were verified with measurements in a phantom. Mean dose to PTV2 (4F, 76 Gy; 6F, 78 Gy; SIMAT, 76 Gy) and the dose delivered to 95% of the target volume (D(95)) were similar between the 3-techniques. Target conformity was better with SIMAT. Mean dose and calculated NTCP for the rectum were lower for SIMAT than those for 4F and 6F plans (4F 55.6 Gy vs. 6F 49.0 Gy vs. SIMAT 42.7 Gy). Mean dose to femoral heads was lower for the 4F technique vs. 6F and SIMAT techniques (4F 44.5 Gy vs. 6F 48.9 Gy vs. SIMAT 49.5 Gy). In-phantom measurement demonstrated good agreement between the plans and SIMAT treatments delivered in phantom. We concluded that SIMAT demonstrates advantages over 4F and 6F in terms of target conformity mean rectal dose and NTCP with good reproducibility in phantom. On the basis of this analysis, we have commenced a clinical pilot study of SIMAT for prostate cancer radiotherapy.

The effect of patient position and treatment technique in conformal treatment of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The relative value of prone versus supine positioning and axial versus nonaxial beam arrangements in the treatment of prostate cancer remains controversial. Two critical issues in comparing techniques are: 1) dose to critical normal tissues, and 2) prostate stabilization.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Ten patients underwent pretreatment CT scans in one supine and two prone positions (flat and angled). To evaluate normal tissue exposure, prostate/seminal vesicle volumes or prostate volumes were expanded 8 mm and covered by the 95% isodose surface by both 6-field axial and 4-field nonaxial techniques. A total of 280 dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were analyzed to evaluate dose to rectal wall and bladder relative to patient position and beam arrangement. A CT scan was repeated in each patient after 5 weeks of treatment. Prostate motion was assessed by comparing early to late scans by three methods: 1) center of mass shift, 2) superior pubic symphysis to anterior prostate distance, and 3) deviation of the posterior surface of the prostate.

RESULTS

For prostate (P) or prostate/seminal vesicle (P/SV) treatments, prone flat was advantageous or equivalent to other positions with regard to rectal sparing. The mechanism of rectal sparing in the prone position may be related to a paradoxical retraction of the rectum against the sacrum, away from the P/SV. Although there was no clear overall preference for beam arrangement, substantial improvements in rectal sparing could be realized for individual patients. In this limited number of patients, there was no convincing evidence prostate position was stabilized by prone relative to supine position.

CONCLUSIONS

Prone flat positioning was advantageous over other positions and beam arrangements in rectal sparing. This study suggests that patient position is a more critical a factor in conformal therapy than beam arrangement, and may improve the safety of dose escalation.

Differences in gross target volumes on contrast vs. noncontrast CT scans utilized for conformal radiation therapy treatment planning for prostate carcinoma

PURPOSE

To compare the gross target volumes (GTVs) (prostate and seminal vesicles) defined on noncontrast and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) images used for three-dimensional conformal treatment planning (3DCRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From 1993 to 1996, 39 patients referred for radiation therapy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate underwent pretreatment pelvic CT scanning with and without intravenous (i.v.) contrast for treatment planning purposes. Seven patients were excluded because of incomplete data sets. The prostate and seminal vesicles were outlined by the same physician on all images of 32 patients. On 18 CT exams, the prostate and seminal vesicles were blindly outlined a second time by the same physician to evaluate intraphysician consistency. Discrepancies between the GTVs outlined with and without contrast and between the first and second outline on the same study were assessed by calculating the projected area in the anterior-to-posterior (AP) and right lateral (RLAT) beam's-eye view (BEV). To assess the magnitude, frequency, and direction of discrepancies between the two GTVs, the extension of the GTVs in six directions (right, left, anterior, posterior, cephalad, and caudal) was determined.

RESULTS

The GTV outlined with contrast was larger in all directions, except caudal, in the majority of patients. The change in the GTV with contrast was significant in the cephalad (p=0.0003) and right (p=0.0007) directions, but not in the other directions. Although the increase with contrast in any direction was usually small (average < or =5 mm), these changes resulted in a significant increase in GTV area in both the AP and RLAT BEV (9.0%, p=0.0017 and 8.2%, p=0.023, respectively). The intraphysician variability in outlining the prostate/ seminal vesicles was minimal.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of i.v. contrast does appear to make a significant difference in how the prostate and seminal vesicles are outlined by an experienced observer. The increase in area of the target, found when contrast is used, should be taken into consideration when designing the treatment fields for patients with carcinoma of the prostate.

A three-field arc technique (3-FAT) for treating prostate cancer

PURPOSE

We have previously designed two external beam radiotherapy techniques for treating prostate cancer. The seven-field, coplanar fixed beam technique resulted in dose distributions that were superior to other coplanar plans studied. The other technique using bilateral blocked arcs produced slightly higher doses to normal tissues but was far simpler to execute. We combined aspects of both these plans to produce a technique that was less complicated yet resulted in an improved dose distribution, i.e., to improve dose delivery to the clinical target volume (CTV) while minimizing doses to the rectum, bladder, and femoral heads.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Twenty patients, previously treated at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) with radiotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate, were studied. Each patient was treated with an immobilizer, urethrogram, and a preplanning CT scan. A previously employed, seven-field, coplanar, fixed beam technique was compared with a newly designed three-field, arc technique (3-FAT). This 3-FAT was designed using two equally weighted rotational beams, with nonuniform blocks, beginning in the lateral gantry position and spanning anteriorly 35 degrees. The two beams became noncoplanar by turning the table 20 degrees, bringing the patient's feet toward the gantry (inferior oblique arcs). An anterior inferior oblique (AIO), angled 20 degrees to the inferior of anterior was included for 10% of the daily treatment. Dose-volume histograms (DVH) were used to evaluate doses to adjacent critical structures. The dose to each critical structure was averaged and tabulated for the 20 patients. In addition, we compared normalized doses to adjacent structures using 3-FAT and seven-coplanar, fixed beams vs. a technique using four noncoplanar, fixed beams.

RESULTS

The three-field arc technique produced favorable dose distributions for the rectum, bladder, and femoral heads. Compared to the seven-field plan, employing the 3-FAT resulted in a 13% lower dose to 40% of the rectum, and 25% lower dose to 40% of the bladder. Compared to the four-field plan, employing the 3-FAT resulted in a 23% lower dose to 40% of the rectum, and 1% decrease in dose to 40% of the bladder. The three-field arc technique reduced the dose delivered to 40% of the femoral heads by approximately 45% when compared to the other techniques. Compared to other standard treatment techniques, the improvement in dose distribution was even greater.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3-FAT represents a technical improvement in the treatment of cancer of the prostate and seminal vesicles by minimizing the dose delivered to adjacent critical structures. The 3-FAT can incorporate the advances of multileaf collimation and digitally reconstructed radiographs to deliver treatment with cost effectiveness and technological efficiency.

Three dimensional comparison of blocked arcs vs. four and six field conformal treatment of the prostate

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare five different techniques for treatment the prostate without seminal vesicles. Dose volume histograms and a time survey are the tools that were used for this analysis.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

For this study we compared 3D techniques using four and six field conformal treatments, to open and blocked 8 x 8 cm2 120 degrees bilateral arcs. All the plans were normalized to deliver 100% to the central axis, and full 3D calculations were performed. Blocked arcs were created using the 'average beam's eye view' (A-BEV) technique.

RESULTS

Analysis of the dose volume histograms revealed: (1) Arcs with blocks result in an improved dose distribution compared to standard arcs and four field 3DCRT techniques, (2) The DVH associated with blocked arcs, using block margins of 1.3 cm, resulted in a somewhat lower dose to the rectum but a 'tighter' margin around the prostate compared to the DVH generated using the six field 3DCRT technique.

CONCLUSION

This technique is for treatment of the prostate only, when treatment of the seminal vesicle is not required. The use of blocked arcs significantly improved the dose distribution compared to using standard arcs and 4-field conformal techniques. The DVHs associated with using blocked arcs is comparable to the SFC technique. It is likely to be less expensive, faster to set-up and may allow for safe dose escalation when only the prostate is receiving treatment.

The "critical volume tolerance method" for estimating the limits of dose escalation during three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To describe the "Critical Volume Tolerance" (CVT) method for defining normal tissue tolerance during 3D-based dose escalation studies for prostate cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The CVT method predicts the tolerance to radiation for "in series"-type functional units based on the assumption that tolerance depends on a critical threshold "low-volume high-dose region." The data used for describing this model were generated from 3D analysis of randomly selected patients with prostate cancer. Commonly used coplanar four-and six-field conformal (SFC) techniques were chosen as the comparison techniques. For purposes of comparison, rectal tolerance was assumed to be reached following whole pelvic irradiation using a four-field box technique to 50 Gy, followed by a conedown boost to 70 Gy using bilateral 9 x 9 cm 120 degree arcs as popularized by investigators from Stanford University (SUH).

RESULTS

Based on the average dose volume histograms for the patients studied, the maximum safe increase in dose for the SFC technique compared to the SUH technique, would be 10% if 30% of the rectal volume was the critical dose limiting volume (CVT = 30%), 5% if the CVT = 10%, or greater than 20% if the CVT = 40%. Commonly used four-field conformal techniques would not be expected to allow significant escalation of the dose without increasing the risk of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The CVT method is relatively simple, and data generated based on it can be used to support normal tissue complication probability equations. The CVT method can be verified or modified as partial tolerance data become available. Based on the CVT model, sophisticated treatment techniques should allow a modest increase in the total dose of radiation delivered to the prostate without an increase in late complications.

Prostate volumes defined by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomographic scans for three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To compare the prostate volumes defined on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and noncontrast computerized tomographic (CT) scans used for three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Ten patients were simulated for treatment using immobilization and a retrograde urethrogram. 3D images were used to compare prostate volumes defined by MRI (4-6 mm thick slices) and CT images (5 mm thick slices). Prostate volumes were calculated in cm(3) using the Scanditronix 3D planning system. MRI/CT images were merged using bony anatomy to define the regions of discrepancy in prostate volumes.

RESULTS

The mean prostate volume was 32% larger (range-5-63%) when defined by noncontrast CT compared to MRI. The areas of nonagreement tended to occur in four distinct regions of discrepancy: (a) the posterior portion of the prostate, (b) the posterior-inferior-apical portion of the prostate, (c) the apex due to disagreement between a urethrogram based definition and the location defined by MRI, (d) regions corresponding to the neurovascular bundle.

CONCLUSION

There is a tendency to overestimate the prostate volume by noncontrast CT compared to MRI. Awareness of this tendency should allow us to be to more accurately define the prostate during 3-D treatment planning.

The impact of isocenter placement errors associated with dose distributions used in irradiating prostate cancer

Historically, four perpendicular treatment fields or bilateral arcs have been used in the treatment of prostate cancer. "New techniques" including four conformal fields, seven conformal fields, 120 degrees bilateral conformal coplanar, and non-coplanar arc'ed beam arrangements, are replacing the "older" approaches. These techniques result in a reduction in doses to adjacent critical structures while covering the clinical target volume (CTV). This study, analyzes the impact of random or systematic isocenter displacement errors (IDE) associated with the delivery of radiotherapy, using the best of these "newer techniques". Dose Volume Histograms (DVH) were used to evaluate the dose to the prostate and surrounding normal tissues with 0.3 cm, 0.5 cm and 0.8 cm IDE. It was determined that IDE associated with fixed coplanar treatment techniques could reduced the prescribed dose to the prostate by 0-8%, the coplanar are technique reduced the prescribed prostate dose by 3-10%, and the noncoplanar conformal arc technique could lower the prescribed prostate dose by 0-5%. Predictably, 0.3 cm IDE found in the posterior and inferior direction increase the dose to the rectum by 5-12% and lowered the dose to the bladder by 4-8%. Errors in the superior and anterior direction increased the dose to the bladder by 4-8% and decreased the dose to the rectum by 8-10%. Errors in the right to left direction slightly increased the dose to the ipsilateral femoral head. Doses to the rectum and bladder associated with 0.5 cm and 0.8 cm IDE are significantly larger. The frequency and magnitude of IDE must be accounted for before higher doses can be delivered safety. Recognizing the impact of IDE on our ability to deliver the prescribed dose to the planning target volumes (PTV) could incorporate the impact of IDE during the planning process.