Intensity modulated proton and photon therapy for early prostate cancer with or without transperineal injection of a polyethylen glycol spacer: a treatment planning comparison study

Prostatic urinary tract visualization with super-resolution deep learning models

In urethra-sparing radiation therapy, prostatic urinary tract visualization is important in decreasing the urinary side effect. A methodology has been developed to visualize the prostatic urinary tract using post-urination magnetic resonance imaging (PU-MRI) without a urethral catheter. This study investigated whether the combination of PU-MRI and super-resolution (SR) deep learning models improves the visibility of the prostatic urinary tract. We enrolled 30 patients who had previously undergone real-time-image-gated spot scanning proton therapy by insertion of fiducial markers. PU-MRI was performed using a non-contrast high-resolution two-dimensional T2-weighted turbo spin-echo imaging sequence. Four different SR deep learning models were used: the enhanced deep SR network (EDSR), widely activated SR network (WDSR), SR generative adversarial network (SRGAN), and residual dense network (RDN). The complex wavelet structural similarity index measure (CW-SSIM) was used to quantitatively assess the performance of the proposed SR images compared to PU-MRI. Two radiation oncologists used a 1-to-5 scale to subjectively evaluate the visibility of the prostatic urinary tract. Cohen's weighted kappa (k) was used as a measure of agreement of inter-operator reliability. The mean CW-SSIM in EDSR, WDSR, SRGAN, and RDN was 99.86%, 99.89%, 99.30%, and 99.67%, respectively. The mean prostatic urinary tract visibility scores of the radiation oncologists were 3.70 and 3.53 for PU-MRI (k = 0.93), 3.67 and 2.70 for EDSR (k = 0.89), 3.70 and 2.73 for WDSR (k = 0.88), 3.67 and 2.73 for SRGAN (k = 0.88), and 4.37 and 3.73 for RDN (k = 0.93), respectively. The results suggest that SR images using RDN are similar to the original images, and the SR deep learning models subjectively improve the visibility of the prostatic urinary tract.

A treatment planning study of urethra-sparing intensity-modulated proton therapy for localized prostate cancer

•

US-IMPT can potentially reduce the risk of genitourinary toxicities.

•

The urethral NTCP value in US-IMPT is significantly lower than in the clinical plan.

•

TCP for CTV did not differ significantly between the clinical and US-IMPT plans.

Background and Purpose

Urethra-sparing radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer can reduce the risk of radiation-induced genitourinary toxicity by intentionally underdosing the periurethral transitional zone. We aimed to compare the clinical impact of a urethra-sparing intensity-modulated proton therapy (US-IMPT) plan with that of conventional clinical plans without urethral dose reduction.

Materials and Methods

This study included 13 patients who had undergone proton beam therapy. The prescribed dose was 63 GyE in 21 fractions for 99% of the clinical target volume. To compare the clinical impact of the US-IMPT plan with that of the conventional clinical plan, tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were calculated with a generalized equivalent uniform dose-based Lyman–Kutcher model using dose volume histograms. The endpoints of these model parameters for the rectum, bladder, and urethra were fistula, contraction, and urethral stricture, respectively.

Results

The mean NTCP value for the urethra in US-IMPT was significantly lower than that in the conventional clinical plan (0.6% vs. 1.2%, p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the conventional and US-IMPT plans regarding the mean minimum dose for the urethra with a 3-mm margin, TCP value, and NTCP value for the rectum and bladder. Additionally, the target dose coverage of all plans in the robustness analysis was within the clinically acceptable range.

Conclusions

Compared with the conventional clinically applied plans, US-IMPT plans have potential clinical advantages and may reduce the risk of genitourinary toxicities, while maintaining the same TCP and NTCP in the rectum and bladder.

Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Hydrodistension - A New Surgical Way in Transgender Surgery

BACKGROUND

Creating the neovaginal canal in transwomen is one of the most delicate steps of Genital Gender Affirming Surgery (GGAS). Injury to the rectum is a rare but serious complication that can lead to further surgery and even creation of a colostomy.

AIM

Implementation of a novel hydrospacing technique (HST) based on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided hydrodistension.

METHODS

Between June 2018 and June 2020 54 transwomen received GGAS with HST. Immediately before GGAS transperineal hydrodistension was performed using a TSK-Supra-Needle (20 Gauge, 120 mm length), that was placed under direct TRUS-guided visual control between Denonvilliers' fascia and the anterior rectal wall. 40 - 60 ml normal saline were administered perineally to separate Denonvilliers' fascia from the anterior rectal wall to create a dissection of at least 20 mm. For better intraoperative visualization the hydrodissected space was also dyed using 2ml of methylenblue while retracting the needle. A retrospectively analysed, clinically and demographically comparable series of 84 transwomen who underwent GGAS between June 2016 and June 2018 served as control group. All 138 surgeries were performed by the same experienced surgeon.

OUTCOMES

The effect of the novel hydrospacing technique on neovaginal dimensions and operating time.

RESULTS

Patients in both groups did not differ in baseline patient characteristics such as age and body mass index (HST 35 vs 38 years in control group, P = .44 and body mass index 26 vs 25 kg/m², P = .73). Vaginal depth and width were significantly larger in the HST subgroup as compared to controls (14.4 cm vs 13.5 cm, P = .01 and 4.2 cm vs 3.8 cm, P < .001). No statistically significant difference occurred in intraoperative rectal injury (n = 0 in HST group, n = 2 in control group, P = .26). Median total OR-time was comparable for GGAS including HST before vaginoplasty to standard technique (211 minutes for HST vs 218 minutes; P = 0.19).

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The proposed additional surgical step during GGAS is minimally invasive and safe, simplifies GGAS and potentially helps to avoid complications such as rectal injury.

STRENGTH & LIMITATIONS

Single-surgeon series, limited follow-up time and no prospective randomization.

CONCLUSION

HST is a safe and feasible procedure, which facilitates a safe preparation of the neovaginal canal during male to female GGAS. Panic A, Rahmani N, Kaspar C, et al. Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Hydrodistension - A New Surgical Way in Transgender Surgery. J Sex Med 2021;18:1135-1141.

Intracranial Autograft Fat Placement to Separate the Optic Chiasm from Tumor to Improve Stereotactic Radiotherapy Dosimetry

BACKGROUND

Radiation therapy for intracranial lesions is constrained by dose to neurologic organs at risk.

CASE DESCRIPTION

We report 2 cases, a newly diagnosed chondrosarcoma and a previously irradiated meningioma, with tumors that abutted the optic chiasm following subtotal resection. Definitive radiotherapy would have required either undercoverage of the tumor or treatment of the chiasm with doses posing an unacceptable risk of blindness. Therefore, the patients underwent open surgery with placement of an abdominal fat autograft to provide space between the tumor and the optic structures at risk. Patients received definitive fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. For each patient, we retrospectively compared the treated plan (with fat autograft) to a second plan generated using the pre-autograft imaging, maintaining similar tumor coverage. For the chondrosarcoma, the fat autograft reduced the optic chiasm maximum dose by 21% (70.4 Gy to 55.3 Gy). For the reirradiated peri-optic meningioma, the optic chiasm maximum dose was reduced by 10% (50.8 Gy to 45.9 Gy), the left optic nerve by 17% (48.9 Gy to 40.4 Gy), and the right optic nerve by 30% (32.3 Gy to 22.6 Gy).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate the utility of abdominal fat autograft placement to maximize coverage of tumor while minimizing dose to intracranial organs at risk.

Comparison of rectal dose reduction by a hydrogel spacer among 3D conformal radiotherapy, volumetric-modulated arc therapy, helical tomotherapy, CyberKnife and proton therapy

This study aimed to evaluate the rectal dose reduction with hydrogel spacer in 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), helical tomotherapy (HT), CyberKnife (CK) and proton therapy. Twenty patients who had hydrogel spacer for prostate radiotherapy were retrospectively enrolled. Computed tomography (CT) images with or without hydrogel spacer were used to evaluate rectal dose reduction. In total, 200 plans (20 patients × 2 CT images × 5 techniques) were created using the following criteria: 3DCRT, VMAT and HT [76 Gy/38 fractions (Fr), planning target volume (PTV) D50%], CK (36.25 Gy/5 Fr, PTV D95%) and proton therapy (63 GyE/21 Fr, PTV D50%). Rectal dose reduction was evaluated using low-/middle-dose (D20%, D50% and D80%) and high-dose (D2%) ranges. Rectal dose reduction of each dose index was compared for each technique. Significant rectal dose reduction (P < 0.001) between the treatment plans on pre- and post-CT images were achieved for all modalities for D50%, D20% and D2%. In particular, the dose reduction of high-dose (D2%) ranges were -40.61 ± 11.19, -32.44 ± 5.51, -25.90 ± 9.89, -13.63 ± 8.27 and -8.06 ± 4.19%, for proton therapy, CK, HT, VMAT and 3DCRT, respectively. The area under the rectum dose-volume histogram curves were 34.15 ± 3.67 and 34.36 ± 5.24% (P = 0.7841) for 3DCRT with hydrogel spacer and VMAT without hydrogel spacer, respectively. Our results indicated that 3DCRT with hydrogel spacer would reduce the medical cost by replacing the conventional VMAT without spacer for prostate cancer treatment, from the point of view of the rectal dose. For the high-dose gradient region, proton therapy and SBRT with CK showed larger rectal dose reduction than other techniques.

What is the quality of hydrogel spacer insertions? and which patients will benefit? A literature review

Aim:

To evaluate the quality of rectal hydrogel spacer (HS) insertions from literature in patients undergoing radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer. The secondary aim is to assess the benefit of HSs in patients with risk factors more likely to have rectal complications, such as non-conventional radiotherapy dose fractionations and high-risk disease.

Method and materials:

A literature search of peer-reviewed electronic articles was carried out using Boolean connectors and Medical Subject Headings in the databases. Databases searched included ScienceDirect, Medline and Cinahl. The articles were assessed using relevant critical appraisal skills programme tools.

Results:

From the 26 studies used, HS showed a clinically significant relative reduction in rectal planning dose volumes for both high- and low-risk prostate cancer patients in a range of radiotherapy treatment modalities including volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, intensity-modulated proton therapy, stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Spacer placements were successfully inserted in 99% of patients. However, rectal wall infiltration occurrence was 6% and ≥2 cm unsymmetrical placements in 2%.

Findings:

A spacer scoring system based on the HS symmetry has provided evidence of the quality of the position inserted, which was visually aided by T2-wieghted MRIs. Despite optimal HS placements ranging from 62 to 72%, HS had a clinically significant reduction of ≥25% in planned rectal V70 dose in 97% of patients.

Hydrogel Spacer Reduces Rectal Dose during Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Dosimetric Analysis

Purpose

Proton therapy for prostate cancer may reduce bowel dose and risk of bowel symptoms relative to photon-based methods. Here, we determined the effect of using a biodegradable, injectable hydrogel spacer on rectal dose on plans for treating prostate cancer with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) or passive scattering proton therapy (PSPT).

Materials and Methods

Pairs of IMPT and PSPT plans for 9 patients were created from fused computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging scans obtained before and after spacer injection. Calculated values of rectal V40, V60, V70, V80, and maximum dose (Dmax) were compared with Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Displacements at the base (BP), midgland (MP), and apex (AP) of the prostate relative to the anterior rectal wall with the spacer in place were averaged for each patient and correlated with V70 by using linear regression models.

Results

The presence of a spacer reduced all dosimetric parameters for both PSPT and IMPT, with the greatest difference in V70, which was 81.1% lower for PSPT-with-spacer than for IMPT-without-spacer. Median displacements at BP, MP, and AP were 12 mm (range 7-19), 2 mm (range 0-4), and 1 mm (range 0-5) without the spacer and 19 mm (range 12-23), 10 mm (range 8-16), and 7 mm (range 2-12) with the spacer. Modest linear trends were noted between rectal V70 and displacement for IMPT-with-spacer and PSPT-with-spacer. When displacement was ≥8 mm, V70 was ≤5.1% for IMPT-with-spacer and PSPT-with-spacer.

Conclusion

Use of biodegradable hydrogel spacers for prostate cancer treatment provides a significant reduction of radiation dose to the rectum with proton therapy. Significant reductions in rectal dose occurred in both PSPT and IMPT plans, with the greatest reduction for IMPT-with-spacer relative to PSPT alone. Prospective studies are ongoing to assess the clinical impact of reducing rectal dose with hydrogel spacers.

Rectal retractor application during image-guided dose-escalated prostate radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To investigate efficacy of a rectal retractor (RR) on rectal dose during image-guided dose-escalated prostate three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 21 patients with localized prostate cancer were treated with a RR for 3DCRT in 40 × 2 Gy. Patient underwent two scans for radiotherapy planning, without and with RR. RR was used for the first half of the treatment sessions. Two plans were created for each patient to compare the effect of RR on rectal doses. PTW-31014 Pinpoint chamber embedded within RR was used for in vivo dosimetry in 6 of 21 patients. The patient tolerance and acute rectal toxicity were surveyed during radiotherapy using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v.4.0.

RESULTS

Patients tolerated the RR well during 20 fractions with mild degree of anal irritation. Using a RR significantly reduced the rectal wall (RW), anterior RW and posterior RW dose-volume parameters. The average RW D_mean was 29.4 and 43.0 Gy for plans with and without RR, respectively. The mean discrepancy between the measured dose and planned dose was -3.8% (±4.9%). Grade 1 diarrhea, rectal urgency and proctitis occurred in 4, 2 and 3 cases, respectively. There were no grade ≥2 acute rectal toxicities during the treatment.

CONCLUSION

Rectal retraction resulted in a significant reduction of rectal doses with a safe toxicity profile, which may reduce rectal toxicity. Dosimeter inserted into the RR providing a practical method for in vivo dosimetric verification. Further prospective clinical studies will be necessary to demonstrate the clinical advantage of RR.

Initial report of the genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity of post-prostatectomy proton therapy for prostate cancer patients undergoing adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To report acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities associated with post-prostatectomy proton therapy (PT).

METHODS

The first 100 consecutive patients from 2010 to 2016 were retrospectively assessed. Baseline characteristics, prospectively graded CTCAE v4.0 toxicities, and patient-reported outcomes were reported. Late outcomes were reported for 79 patients with 3 months minimum follow up. Toxicity-free survival Kaplan-Meier curves were estimated. Logistic regression assessed associations between toxicities and clinical and treatment characteristics (p < .05 significance).

RESULTS

Median age, months after surgery, and months of follow-up were respectively 64 years (range 42-77), 25 (5-216), and 25 (0-47). PT received was 70.2 Gy (RBE) (89%), salvage (93%), prostate bed only (80%), pencil beam scanning (86%), with IMRT (31%), and with androgen deprivation (34%). Acute and late maximum toxicities, respectively were: GU grade 0 (14%; 18%), 1 (71%; 62%), 2 (15%; 20%), ≥3 (0), and GI: grade 0 (66%; 73%), 1 (34%; 27%), ≥2 (0). Toxicity-free survival at 24 months was GU grade 2 (83%) and GI grade 1 (74%). Mean (±std dev) baseline International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Index of Erectile Function, and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite bowel function and bother were 6.6 ± 6.1, 10.5 ± 7.3, 90.9 ± 10.8, 93.3 ± 11.2, respectively, and largely unchanged at 2 years: 6.3 ± 3.6, 11.1 ± 6.3, 92.8 ± 5.8, and 90.9 ± 10.3. On multivariate analysis, baseline IPSS (p = .009) associated with GU grade 2 acute toxicity. Bladderless-CTV median dose, V30, and V40 associated with GU grade 2 acute toxicity and maximum dose with late (Ps <0.05). For GI, on multivariate analysis, baseline bowel function (p = .033) associated with acute grade 1 toxicity. Rectal minimum and median dose, V10, and V20, and anterior rectal wall median dose and V10 through V65 associated with acute grade 1 GI toxicity (Ps < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Post-prostatectomy PT for prostate cancer is feasible with a favorable GU and GI toxicity profile acutely and through early follow up.

Urethra-sparing stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer: how much can the rectal wall dose be reduced with or without an endorectal balloon?

Background

This is a dosimetric comparative study intended to establish appropriate low-to-intermediate dose-constraints for the rectal wall (R_wall) in the context of a randomized phase-II trial on urethra-sparing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer. The effect of plan optimization on low-to-intermediate R_wall dose and the potential benefit of an endorectal balloon (ERB) are investigated.

Methods

Ten prostate cancer patients, simulated with and without an ERB, were planned to receive 36.25Gy (7.25Gyx5) to the planning treatment volume (PTV) and 32.5Gy to the urethral planning risk volume (uPRV). Reference plans with and without the ERB, optimized with respect to PTV and uPRV coverage objectives and the organs at risk dose constraints, were further optimized using a standardized stepwise approach to push down dose constraints to the R_wall in the low to intermediate range in five sequential steps to obtain paired plans with and without ERB (Vm₁ to Vm₅). Homogeneity index for the PTV and the uPRV, and the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) for the PTV were analyzed. Dosimetric parameters for R_wall including the median dose and the dose received by 10 to 60% of the R_wall, bladder wall (B_wall) and femoral heads (F_Heads) were compared. The monitor units (MU) per plan were recorded.

Results

Vm₄ reduced by half D_30%, D_40%, D_50%, and D_med for R_wall and decreased by a third D_60% while HI_PTV, HI_uPRV and DSC remained stable with and without ERB compared to Vm_ref. HI_PTV worsened at Vm₅ both with and without ERB. No statistical differences were observed between paired plans on R_wall, B_wall except a higher D_2% for F_heads with and without an ERB.

Conclusions

Further optimization to the R_wall in the context of urethra sparing prostate SBRT is feasible without compromising the dose homogeneity to the target. Independent of the use or not of an ERB, low-to-intermediate doses to the R_wall can be significantly reduced using a four-step sequential optimization approach.

The role of radioprotective spacers in clinical practice: a review

The delivery of high dose radiotherapy to tumors is often limited by the proximity of the surrounding radiosensitive normal tissues, even using modern techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Previous studies have reported that placement of a spacer can effectively displace normal tissues. So that they are some distance away from the lesion, thus allowing for the safe delivery of high-dose radiation. The application of radioprotective spacers was first reported 30 years ago regarding radiotherapy of tongue and abdominal cancers; more recently, they are increasingly being used in prostate cancer. This review focuses on the published data concerning the features of different types of spacers and their application in various tumor sites. Placement-related complications and the cost-effectiveness of the spacers are also discussed. With the increasing use of high-precision radiotherapy in clinical practice, especially the paradigm-changing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), more robust studies are warranted to further establish the role of radioprotective spacers through materials development and novel placement techniques.

Hydrogel rectum-prostate spacers mitigate the uncertainties in proton relative biological effectiveness associated with anterior-oblique beams

AIM

Anterior-oblique (AO) proton beams can form an attractive option for prostate patients receiving external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) as they avoid the femoral heads. For a cohort with hydrogel prostate-rectum spacers, we asked whether it was possible to generate AO proton plans robust to end-of-range elevations in linear energy transfer (LET) and modeled relative biological effectiveness (RBE). Additionally we considered how rectal spacers influenced planned dose distributions for AO and standard bilateral (SB) proton beams versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We studied three treatment strategies for 10 patients with rectal spacers: (A) AO proton beams, (B) SB proton beams and (C) IMRT. For strategy (A) dose and LET distributions were simulated (using the TOPAS Monte Carlo platform) and the McNamara model was used to calculate proton RBE as a function of LET, dose per fraction, and photon α/β. All calculations were performed on pretreatment scans: inter- and intra-fractional changes in anatomy/set-up were not considered.

RESULTS

For 9/10 patients, rectal spacers enabled generation of AO proton plans robust to modeled RBE elevations: rectal dose constraints were fulfilled even when the variable RBE model was applied with a conservative α/β = 2 Gy. Amongst a subset of patients the proton rectal doses for the planning target volume plans were remarkably low: for 2/10 SB plans and 4/10 AO plans, ≤10% of the rectum received ≥20 Gy. AO proton plans delivered integral doses a factor of approximately three lower than IMRT and spared the femoral heads almost entirely.

CONCLUSION

Typically, rectal spacers enabled the generation of anterior beam proton plans that appeared robust to modeled variation in RBE. However, further analysis of day-to-day robustness would be required prior to a clinical implementation of AO proton beams. Such beams offer almost complete femoral head sparing, but their broader value relative to IMRT and SB protons remains unclear.

Rectal dose to prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy with or without rectal spacer

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a spacer inserted in the prerectal space could reduce modeled rectal dose and toxicity rates for patients with prostate cancer treated in silico with pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy. A total of 20 patients were included in this study who received photon therapy (12 with rectal spacer (DuraSeal™ gel) and 8 without). Two PBS treatment plans were retrospectively created for each patient using the following beam arrangements: (1) lateral-opposed (LAT) fields and (2) left and right anterior oblique (LAO/RAO) fields. Dose volume histograms (DVH) were generated for the prostate, rectum, bladder, and right and left femoral heads. The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for ≥grade 2 rectal toxicity was calculated using the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model and compared between patients with and without the rectal spacer. A significantly lower mean rectal DVH was achieved in patients with rectal spacer compared to those without. For LAT plans, the mean rectal V70 with and without rectal spacer was 4.19 and 13.5%, respectively. For LAO/RAO plans, the mean rectal V70 with and without rectal spacer was 5.07 and 13.5%, respectively. No significant differences were found in any rectal dosimetric parameters between the LAT and the LAO/RAO plans generated with the rectal spacers. We found that ≥ 9 mm space resulted in a significant decrease in NTCP modeled for ≥grade 2 rectal toxicity. Rectal spacers can significantly decrease modeled rectal dose and predicted ≥grade 2 rectal toxicity in prostate cancer patients treated in silico with PBS. A minimum of 9 mm separation between the prostate and anterior rectal wall yields the largest benefit.

Emerging Technologies and Techniques in Radiation Therapy

The past decade has brought an improved ability to precisely target and deliver radiation as well as other focal prostate-directed therapy. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), proton beam radiation, high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, as well as nonradiotherapy treatments such as cryoablation and high-intensity focused ultrasound are several therapeutic modalities that have been investigated for the treatment of prostate cancer in an attempt to reduce toxicity while improving cancer control. However, high-risk prostate cancer requires a comprehensive treatment of the prostate as well as areas at risk for cancer spread. Therefore, most new radiation treatment (SBRT, HDR, and proton beam radiation) modalities have been largely investigated in combination with regional radiation therapy. Though the evidence is evolving, the use of SBRT, HDR, and proton beam radiation is promising. Nonradiation focal therapy has been proposed mainly for partial gland treatment in men with low-risk disease, and its use in high-risk prostate cancer patients remains experimental.

Impact of hydrogel spacer injections on interfraction prostate motion during prostate cancer radiotherapy

Background The dosimetric advantage of prostate-rectum spacers to displace the anterior rectal wall outside of the high-dose radiation regions has been clearly established in prostate cancer radiotherapy (RT). The aim of this study was to assess the impact of hydrogel spacer (HS) in the interfraction prostate motion in patients undergoing RT for prostate cancer. Material and methods Twenty prostate cancer patients implanted with three fiducial markers (FM) with (n = 10) or without (n = 10) HS were analyzed. Displacements between the prostate isocenter based on the FM's position and the bony anatomy were quantified in the left-right (LR), anterior-posterior (AP), superior-inferior (SI) axes by offline analyses of 122 cone beam computed tomography scans. Group systematic (M), systematic (Σ) and random (σ) setup errors were determined. Results In patients with or without HS, the overall mean interfraction prostate displacements were 0.4 versus -0.4 mm (p = 0.0001), 0.6 versus 0.6 mm (p = 0.85), and -0.6 mm versus -0.3 mm (p = 0.48) for the LR, AP, and SI axes, respectively. Prostate displacements >5 mm in the AP and SI directions were similar for both groups. No differences in M, Σ and σ setup errors were observed in the three axes between HS + or HS- patients. Conclusions HS implantation does not significantly influence the interfraction prostate motion in patients treated with RT for prostate cancer. The major expected benefit of HS is a reduction of the high-dose levels to the rectal wall without influence in prostate immobilization.

Changes in Rectal Dose Due to Alterations in Beam Angles for Setup Uncertainty and Range Uncertainty in Carbon-Ion Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

Background and Purpose

Carbon-ion radiotherapy of prostate cancer is challenging in patients with metal implants in one or both hips. Problems can be circumvented by using fields at oblique angles. To evaluate the influence of setup and range uncertainties accompanying oblique field angles, we calculated rectal dose changes with oblique orthogonal field angles, using a device with fixed fields at 0° and 90° and a rotating patient couch.

Material and Methods

Dose distributions were calculated at the standard angles of 0° and 90°, and then at 30° and 60°. Setup uncertainty was simulated with changes from −2 mm to +2 mm for fields in the anterior-posterior, left-right, and cranial-caudal directions, and dose changes from range uncertainty were calculated with a 1 mm water-equivalent path length added to the target isocenter in each angle. The dose distributions regarding the passive irradiation method were calculated using the K2 dose algorithm.

Results

The rectal volumes with 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° field angles at 95% of the prescription dose were 3.4±0.9 cm³, 2.8±1.1 cm³, 2.2±0.8 cm³, and 3.8±1.1 cm³, respectively. As compared with 90° fields, 30° and 60° fields had significant advantages regarding setup uncertainty and significant disadvantages regarding range uncertainty, but were not significantly different from the 90° field setup and range uncertainties.

Conclusions

The setup and range uncertainties calculated at 30° and 60° field angles were not associated with a significant change in rectal dose relative to those at 90°.

SBRT for prostate cancer: Challenges and features from a physicist prospective

Emerging data are showing the safety and the efficacy of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) in prostate cancer management. In this context, the medical physicists are regularly involved to review the appropriateness of the adopted technology and to proactively study new solutions. From the physics point of view there are two major challenges in prostate SBRT: (1) mitigation of geometrical uncertainty and (2) generation of highly conformal dose distributions that maximally spare the OARs. Geometrical uncertainties have to be limited as much as possible in order to avoid the use of large PTV margins. Furthermore, advanced planning and delivery techniques are needed to generate maximally conformal dose distributions. In this non-systematic review the technology and the physics aspects of SBRT for prostate cancer were analyzed. In details, the aims were: (i) to describe the rationale of reducing the number of fractions (i.e. increasing the dose per fraction), (ii) to analyze the features to be accounted for performing an extreme hypo-fractionation scheme (>6-7Gy), and (iii) to describe technological solutions for treating in a safe way. The analysis of outcomes, toxicities, and other clinical aspects are not object of the present evaluation.

Proton beams in cancer treatments: Clinical outcomes and dosimetric comparisons with photon therapy

PURPOSE

To review current evidence of the role of proton therapy (PT) in other tumors than skull base, sinusal/parasinusal, spinal and pediatric tumors; to determine medico-economic aspects raised by PT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review on Medline was performed with the following keywords: proton therapy, proton beam, protontherapy, cancer; publications with comparison between PT and photon-therapy were also selected.

RESULTS

In silico studies have shown superiority (better dose delivery to the target and/or to organs at risk) of PT toward photon-therapy in most of thoracic and abdominal malignant tumors. Potential benefits of PT could be: reduction of toxicities (including radiation-induced cancer), increase of tumor control through a dose-escalation approach, hypofractionation. Cost of treatment is always cited as an issue which actually can be managed by a precise patient selection making PT a cost-effective procedure. Comparison plan with photon therapy may be useful to determine the dosimetric and clinical advantages of PT (Normal Tissue Complications Probability).

CONCLUSION

PT may be associated with a great advantage compared to the best photon-therapies in various types of cancers. Accumulation of clinical data is on-going and will challenge the in silico data analysis. Some indications are associated with strong superiority of PT and may be discussed as a new standard within prospective observational studies.

Current role of spacers for prostate cancer radiotherapy

Radiotherapy is an established curative treatment method for prostate cancer. Optimal tumor control rates can only be achieved with high local doses, associated with a considerable risk of rectal toxicity. Apart from already widely adapted technical advances, as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, the application of spacers placed between the prostate and rectum has been increasingly used in the last years. Biodegradable spacers, including hydrogel, hyaluronic acid, collagen or an implantable balloon, can be injected or inserted in a short procedure under transrectal ultrasound guidance via a transperineal approach. A distance of about 1.0-1.5 cm is usually achieved between the rectum and prostate, excluding the rectal wall from the high isodoses. Several studies have shown well tolerated injection procedures and treatments. Apart from considerable reduction of rectal irradiation, a prospective randomized trial demonstrated a reduction of rectal toxicity after hydrogel injection in men undergoing prostate image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy. The results are encouraging for continuing evaluation in dose escalation, hypofractionation, stereotactic radiotherapy or re-irradiation trials in the future.

PEG spacer gel and adaptive planning vs single plan in external prostate radiotherapy--clinical dosimetry evaluation

OBJECTIVE

Spacer gel is used to reduce the rectal dose in prostate radiotherapy. It is injected to increase the distance between the prostate and rectum. During the course of external radiotherapy treatment, physiological changes in rectal volume exist. When using polyethylene glycol material, such as DuraSeal(®) (Covidien, Mansfield, MA), gel resorption also occurs. Together, these factors alter the original dose plan distribution.

METHODS

External dose planning and calculations were simulated using images acquired from 10 patients who were treated with brachytherapy and gel. The CT series was taken relative to gel injection: pre 1 day, post 1 day, post 1 month and post 2 months. Adaptive planning was compared with a single plan.

RESULTS

Adaptive planning shows better results compared with the single plan used in the total treatment course; however, the effect is minor.

CONCLUSION

Gel usage is clearly favourable to rectal DVH. Using adaptive planning with gel improves rectal DVH but is not necessary according to this study.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

Spacer gel is used in prostate radiotherapy to increase distance between the prostate and the rectum, thus reducing the rectal doses. During the treatment course, gel resorption exists which affects the rectal doses. The usefulness of adaptive planning to compensate this resorption effect has not been studied before.

Volumetric-modulated arc stereotactic body radiotherapy for prostate cancer: dosimetric impact of an increased near-maximum target dose and of a rectal spacer

OBJECTIVE

In volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), dose coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) becomes challenging when the sparing of rectum, bladder and urethra is strictly pursued. Our current 35-Gy-in-five-fraction plans only assure 33.2 Gy to ≥95% PTV ([Formula: see text] ≥ 95%). Looking for an improved [Formula: see text], increased near-maximum target dose (D2%) and prostate-rectum spacer insertion were tested.

METHODS

For 11 patients, two VMAT plans, with D2% ≤ 37.5 Gy (Hom) or D2% ≤ 40.2 Gy (Het), on each of two CT studies, before or after spacer insertion, were computed. All plans assured [Formula: see text] ≥95%, and <1 cm(3) of rectum, bladder and urethra receiving ≥35 Gy. By hypothesis testing, several dose-volume metrics for target coverage and rectal sparing were compared across the four groups of plans. The impact of spacer insertion on the fractions of rectum receiving more than 18, 28 and 32 Gy ([Formula: see text]) was further tested by linear correlation analysis.

RESULTS

By hypothesis testing, the increased D2% was associated with improvements in target coverage, whereas spacer insertion was associated with improvements in both target coverage and rectal [Formula: see text]. By linear correlation analysis, spacer insertion was related to the reductions in rectal [Formula: see text] for X ≥ 28 Gy.

CONCLUSION

A slightly increased D2% or the use of spacer insertion was each able to improve [Formula: see text]. Their combined use assured [Formula: see text] ≥ 98% to all our patients. Spacer insertion was further causative for improvements in rectal sparing.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

For VMAT plans in prostate SBRT, the distinct dosimetric usefulness of increased D2% and of the use of spacer insertion were validated in terms of target coverage and rectal sparing.

Prostate hypofractionated radiation therapy with injection of hyaluronic acid: acute toxicities in a phase 2 study

PURPOSE

Hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) in prostate cancer can be developed only if the risk of rectal toxicity is controlled. In a multicenter phase 2 trial, hypofractionated irradiation was combined with an injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) to preserve the rectal wall. Tolerance of the injection and acute toxicity rates are reported.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The study was designed to assess late grade 2 toxicity rates. The results described here correspond to the secondary objectives. Acute toxicity was defined as occurring during RT or within 3 months after RT and graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. HA tolerance was evaluated with a visual analog scale during the injection and 30 minutes after injection and then by use of the Common Terminology Criteria at each visit.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2012, 36 patients with low-risk to intermediate-risk prostate cancer were included. The HA injection induced a mean pain score of 4.6/10 ± 2.3. Thirty minutes after the injection, 2 patients still reported pain (2/10 and 3/10), which persisted after the intervention. Thirty-three patients experienced at least 1 acute genitourinary toxicity and 20 patients at least 1 acute gastrointestinal toxicity. Grade 2 toxicities were reported for 19 patients with urinary obstruction, frequency, or both and for 1 patient with proctitis. No grade 3 or 4 toxicities were reported. At the 3-month visit, 4 patients described grade 2 obstruction or frequency, and no patients had any grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

The injection of HA makes it possible to deliver hypofractionated irradiation over 4 weeks with a dose per fraction of > 3 Gy, with limited acute rectal toxicity.

Ion therapy of prostate cancer: daily rectal dose reduction by application of spacer gel

Background

Ion beam therapy represents a promising approach to treat prostate cancer, mainly due to its high conformity and radiobiological effectiveness. However, the presence of prostate motion, patient positioning and range uncertainties may deteriorate target dose and increase exposure of organs at risk. Spacer gel injected between prostate and rectum may increase the safety of prostate cancer (PC) radiation therapy by separating the rectum from the target dose field. The dosimetric impact of the application of spacer gel for scanned carbon ion therapy of PC has been analyzed at Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT).

Materials and methods

The robustness of ion therapy treatment plans was investigated by comparison of two data sets of patients treated with and without spacer gel. A research treatment planning system for ion therapy was used for treatment plan optimization and calculation of daily dose distributions on 2 to 9 Computed Tomography (CT) studies available for each of the 19 patients. Planning and daily dose distributions were analyzed with respect to target coverage, maximal dose to the rectum (excluding 1 ml of the greatest dose; Dmax-1 ml) and the rectal volume receiving dose greater than 90% of prescribed target dose (V90_Rectum), respectively.

Results

The application of spacer gel did substantially diminish rectum dose. Dmax-1 ml on the treatment planning CT was on average reduced from 100.0 ± 1.0% to 90.2 ± 4.8%, when spacer gel was applied. The robustness analysis performed with daily CT studies demonstrated for all analyzed patient cases that application of spacer gel results in a decrease of the daily V90_Rectum index, which calculated over all patient cases and CT studies was 10.2 ± 10.4 [ml] and 1.1 ± 2.1 [ml] for patients without and with spacer gel, respectively.

Conclusions

The dosimetric benefit of increasing the distance between prostate and rectum using spacer gel for PC treatment with carbon ion beams has been quantified. Application of spacer gel substantially reduced rectal exposure to high treatment dose and, therefore, can reduce the hazard of rectal toxicity in ion beam therapy of PC. The results of this study enable modifications of the PC ion therapy protocol such as dose escalation or hypofractionation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-015-0348-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A review of rectal toxicity following permanent low dose-rate prostate brachytherapy and the potential value of biodegradable rectal spacers

Permanent radioactive seed implantation provides highly effective treatment for prostate cancer that typically includes multidisciplinary collaboration between urologists and radiation oncologists. Low dose-rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy offers excellent tumor control rates and has equivalent rates of rectal toxicity when compared with external beam radiotherapy. Owing to its proximity to the anterior rectal wall, a small portion of the rectum is often exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation from this procedure. Although rare, some patients develop transfusion-dependent rectal bleeding, ulcers or fistulas. These complications occasionally require permanent colostomy and thus can significantly impact a patient's quality of life. Aside from proper technique, a promising strategy has emerged that can help avoid these complications. By injecting biodegradable materials behind Denonviller's fascia, brachytherpists can increase the distance between the rectum and the radioactive sources to significantly decrease the rectal dose. This review summarizes the progress in this area and its applicability for use in combination with permanent LDR brachytherapy.

Spacers in radiotherapy treatment of prostate cancer: is reduction of toxicity cost-effective?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of treating prostate cancer patients with intensity-modulated radiation therapy and a spacer (IMRT+S) versus IMRT-only without a spacer (IMRT-O).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision-analytic Markov model was constructed to examine the effect of late rectal toxicity and compare the costs and quality-adjusted Life Years (QALYs) of IMRT-O and IMRT+S. The main assumption of this modeling study was that disease progression, genito-urinary toxicity and survival were equal for both comparators.

RESULTS

For all patients, IMRT+S revealed a lower toxicity than IMRT-O. Treatment follow-up and toxicity costs for IMRT-O and IMRT+S amounted to €1604 and €1444, respectively, thus saving €160 on the complication costs at an extra charge of €1700 for the spacer in IMRT+S. The QALYs yielded for IMRT-O and IMRT+S were 3.542 and 3.570, respectively. This results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €55,880 per QALY gained. For a ceiling ratio of €80,000, IMRT+S had a 77% probability of being cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

IMRT+S is cost-effective compared to IMRT-O based on its potential to reduce radiotherapy-related toxicity.

Spacer application for prostate cancer radiation therapy

Definitive radiotherapy is a well-recognized treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Rectum toxicity is the dose-limiting toxicity. Dose-volume correlations have been reported in many studies. The application of a spacer to increase the distance between the prostate and anterior rectal wall is an innovative technique, considerably reducing the dose to the rectum. Hyaluronic acid, human collagen, an inflatable balloon or hydrogel are potential materials to create the desired effect. The number of clinical studies is rapidly increasing. Well-tolerated injection or implantation techniques and low rectal treatment-related toxicity have been demonstrated in prospective studies. Long-term clinical results and the results of randomized studies are needed to better define the beneficial effect for the patient.

Optimization of radiation therapy techniques for prostate cancer with prostate-rectum spacers: a systematic review

Dose-escalated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer improves disease control but is also associated with worse rectal toxicity. A spacer placed between the prostate and rectum can be used to displace the anterior rectal wall outside of the high-dose radiation regions and potentially minimize radiation-induced rectal toxicity. This systematic review focuses on the published data regarding the different types of commercially available prostate-rectum spacers. Dosimetric results and preliminary clinical data using prostate-rectum spacers in patients with localized prostate cancer treated by curative radiation therapy are compared and discussed.

The rectovaginal septum: visible on magnetic resonance images of women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome (Müllerian agenesis)

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Ongoing debate exists about whether the rectovaginal septum (Denonvilliers' fascia) is myth or reality. This study evaluates magnetic resonance images (MRI) of women with Müllerian agenesis for the presence of fascial layers between the rectum and the bladder to test the hypothesis that this layer exists in the absence of the vagina.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of a study describing MRI aspects in women with vaginal agenesis before and after laparoscopic Vecchietti procedure. Study participants (n =16) had a multiplanar pelvic MR scan. Images were evaluated independently by two investigators (MH, JOLD) for the appearance of layers separate from the bladder and rectum in the area of interest, with characteristic anatomical features of the septum.

RESULTS

Participants' mean age was 19.4±2.6 years ± standard deviation (SD). In 12 of 16 patients (75 %) a distinct layer between rectum and bladder was identified in either the axial(4/16; 25 %) or sagittal (12/16; 75 %) scan or both. Characteristic anatomical features included lateral attachment to the levator ani muscle, cranial fusion to the cul-de-sac peritoneum,and caudal insertion into the perineal body.Conclusions Three quarters of women with Müllerian agenesis have a visible layer between bladder and rectum. As none of the participants had a vagina, these results support the existence of a rectovaginal septum, separate from a vaginal adventitia.

[Prostate-rectum spacers: optimization of prostate cancer irradiation]

In the curative radiotherapy of localized prostate cancer, improvements in biochemical control observed with dose escalation have been counterbalanced by an increase in radiation-induced toxicity. The injection of biodegradable spacers between prostate and rectum represents a new frontier in the optimization of radiotherapy treatments for patients with localized disease. Transperineal injection of different types of spacers under transrectal ultrasound guidance allows creating a 7-to-20 mm additional space between the prostate and the anterior rectal wall lasting 3 to 12 months. Dosimetrically, a relative reduction in the rectal volume receiving at least 70 Gy (V70) in the order of 43% to 84% is observed with all types of spacers, regardless of the radiotherapy technique used. Preliminary clinical results show for all spacers a good tolerance and a possible reduction in the acute side effects rate. The aim of the present systematic review of the literature is to report on indications as well as dosimetric and clinical advantages of the different types of prostate-rectum spacers commercially available (hydrogel, hyaluronic acid, collagen, biodegradable balloon).

A dosimetric study of polyethylene glycol hydrogel in 200 prostate cancer patients treated with high-dose rate brachytherapy±intensity modulated radiation therapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We sought to analyze the effect of polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel on rectal doses in prostate cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between July 2009 and April 2013, we treated 200 clinically localized prostate cancer patients with high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy±intensity modulated radiation therapy. Half of the patients received a transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided transperineal injection of 10mL PEG hydrogel (DuraSeal™ Spinal Sealant System; Covidien, Mansfield, MA) in their anterior perirectal fat immediately prior to the first HDR brachytherapy treatment and 5mL PEG hydrogel prior to the second HDR brachytherapy treatment. Prostate, rectal, and bladder doses and prostate-rectal distances were calculated based upon treatment planning CT scans.

RESULTS

There was a success rate of 100% (100/100) with PEG hydrogel implantation. PEG hydrogel significantly increased the prostate-rectal separation (mean±SD, 12±4mm with gel vs. 4±2mm without gel, p<0.001) and significantly decreased the mean rectal D2 mL (47±9% with gel vs. 60±8% without gel, p<0.001). Gel decreased rectal doses regardless of body mass index (BMI).

CONCLUSIONS

PEG hydrogel temporarily displaced the rectum away from the prostate by an average of 12mm and led to a significant reduction in rectal radiation doses, regardless of BMI.

Feasibility of and rectal dosimetry improvement with the use of SpaceOAR® hydrogel for dose-escalated prostate cancer radiotherapy

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of injecting a temporary spacer between the rectum and the prostate and to quantify the degree of rectal dosimetric improvement that might result.

METHODS

Ten patients underwent CT and MRI before and after injection of 10 cc of hydrogel and at completion of radiotherapy. Hydrogel was injected under general anaesthetic using a transperineal approach. The primary endpoints were perioperative toxicity and rectal dosimetry (V80, V75, V70, V65, V40 and V30). Secondary endpoints were acute gastrointestinal toxicity during and 3 months following radiotherapy and the stability of the hydrogel. Treatment for all patients was planned incorporating volumetric modulated arc therapy with a D95 of 80 Gy in 40 fractions to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles on both the pre- and post-hydrogel scans. Toxicity was scored with the Common Terminology Criteria, v. 3.0.

RESULTS

In the first 24 h, two patients described an increase in bowel movement frequency. The comparison plans had identical prescription doses. Rectal doses were significantly lower for all hydrogel patients for all dose endpoints (V80 = 7% vs. 0.1%, V75 = 10.3% vs. 1.1%, V70 = 13.2% vs. 2.7%, V65 = 15.8% vs. 4.6%, V40 = 35.2% vs. 23.3%, V30 = 52.6% vs. 38.5%; P < 0.001). Post-treatment MRI showed gel stability. Grade 1 bowel toxicity was reported in six patients during radiotherapy and two patients at 3 months' follow-up. No Grade 2 or Grade 3 acute bowel toxicity was reported.

CONCLUSION

SpaceOAR hydrogel was successfully injected in 10 patients with minimal side effects. Rectal dosimetry was significantly improved in all patients. This study has been extended to 30 patients with longer follow-up planned.

Linac based SBRT for prostate cancer in 5 fractions with VMAT and flattening filter free beams: preliminary report of a phase II study

Background

To evaluate the feasibility and early side effects of a short course hypo-fractionated SBRT programme with Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and Flattening Filter Free (FFF) beams.

Methods

A prospective phase I-II study, started on February 2012. Inclusion criteria were: age ≤ 80 years, WHO-PS ≤ 2, PSA ≤ 20 ng/ml, histologically proven prostate adenocarcinoma, T1-T2 stage, no distant metastases, no previous surgery other than TURP, no malignant tumours in the previous 5 years, IPSS 0–7. The schedule was 35 Gy in 5 alternative days. SBRT was delivered with RapidArc VMAT, with 10MV FFF photons. Toxicity assessment was performed according to CTCAE v4.0 scale. EPIC questionnaires assessed Quality-of-Life. Neo-adjuvant/concomitant hormonal-therapy was prescribed according to risk classification. SpaceOAR™ gel was optionally implanted to increase the separation space between the prostate and the rectal wall.

Results

Median follow-up was 11 months (range: 5–16); 40 patients were recruited in the protocol and treated. According to NCCN criteria, 26/40 patients were low-risk and 14/40 were intermediate risk. Median age was 70 years (56–80), median initial PSA was 6.25 ng/ml (0.50-13.43 ng/ml). Median Gleason score was 6 (6–7). All patients completed the treatment as programmed (median 11.8 days (9–22). Acute Toxicities were as follow: Rectum G0: 30/40 cases (75%); G1: 6/40 (15%); G2: 4/40 (10%). Genito-urinary: G0: 16/40 (40%); G1: 8/40 (20%); G2: 16/34 (40%). In two G2 urinary retention cases, intermittent catheter was needed. No acute G3 or greater toxicity was found. Median treatment time was 126 sec (120–136). SpaceOAR™ was implanted in 8 patients. PSA reduction from the pre-treatment value of the marker was documented in all patients.

Conclusions

Early findings suggest that SBRT with RapidArc and FFF beams for prostate cancer in 5 fractions is feasible and tolerated in acute setting. Longer follow-up is needed for assessment of late toxicity and outcome.