Postoperative intensity modulated radiation therapy in high risk prostate cancer: a dosimetric comparison

Study on the transferability of the knowledge-based VMAT model to predict IMRT plans in prostate cancer radiotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of VMAT library-derived model transfer in the prediction of IMRT plans by dosimetry comparison among with three groups of IMRT plans: two groups of automatic IMRT plans generated by the knowledge-based the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) model and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) model and one group of manual IMRT plans.

METHODS

52 prostate cancer patients who had completed radiotherapy were selected and randomly divided into 2 groups with 40 and 12 separately. Then both VMAT and IMRT plans were manually designed for all patients. The total plans in the group with 40 cases as training datasets were added to the knowledge-based planning (KBP) models for learning and finally obtained VMAT and IMRT training models. Another 12 cases were selected as the validation group to be used to generated auto IMRT plans by KBP VMAT and IMRT models. At last, the radiotherapy plans from three groups were obtained: the automated IMRT plan (V-IMRT) predicted by the VMAT model, the automated IMRT plan (I-IMRT) predicted by the IMRT model and the manual IMRT plan (M-IMRT) designed before. The dosimetric parameters of planning target volume (PTV) and organ at risks (OARs) as well as the time parameters (monitor unit, MU) were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The dose limit of all plans in the training datasets met the clinical requirements. Compared with the training plans added to VMAT model, the dosimetry parameters have no statistical differences in PTV (P > 0.05); the dose of X% volume (Dx%) with D25% and D35% in rectal and the maximum dose (Dmax) in the right femoral head were lower (P = 0.04, P = 0.01, P = 0.00) while D50% in rectal was higher (< 0.05) in the IMRT model plans. In the 12 validation cases, both automated plans showed better dose distribution compared with the M-IMRT plan: the Dmax of PTV in the I-IMRT plans and the dose in volume of interesting (VOI) of bladder and bilateral femoral heads were lower with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). Compared with the I-IMRT plans, dosimetric parameters in PTV and VOI of all OARs had no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05), but the Dmax in left femoral heard and D15% in the right femoral head were lower and have significant differences (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the low-dose regions, which was defined as all volumes outside of the PTV (RV) with the statistical parameters of mean dose (Dmean), the volume of covering more than 5 Gy dose (V5Gy), and also the time parameter (MU) required to perform the plan were considered. The results showed that Dmean in V-IMRT was smaller than that in the I-IMRT plan (P = 0.02) and there was no significant difference in V5Gy and MU (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the manual plan, the IMRT plans generated by the KBP models had a significant advantage in dose control of both OARs and PTV. Compared to the I-IMRT plans, the V-IMRT plans was not only without significant disadvantages, but it also achieved slightly better control of the low-dose region, which meet the clinical requirements and can used in the clinical treatment. This study demonstrates that it is feasible to transfer the KBP VMAT model in the prediction of IMRT plans.

Intensified adjuvant treatment of prostate carcinoma: feasibility analysis of a phase I/II trial

PURPOSE

To perform a preliminary feasibility acute and late toxicity evaluation of an intensified and modulated adjuvant treatment in prostate cancer (PCa) patients after radical prostatectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A phase I/II has been designed. Eligible patients were 79 years old or younger, with an ECOG of 0-2, previously untreated, histologically proven prostate adenocarcinoma with no distant metastases, pT2-4 N0-1, and with at least one of the following risk factors: capsular perforation, positive surgical margins, and seminal vesicle invasion. All patients received a minimum dose on tumor bed of 64.8 Gy, or higher dose (70.2 Gy; 85.4%), according to the pathological stage, pelvic lymph nodes irradiation (57.7%), and/or hormonal therapy (69.1%).

RESULTS

123 patients were enrolled and completed the planned treatment, with good tolerance. Median follow-up was 50.6 months. Grade 3 acute toxicity was only 2.4% and 3.3% for genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) tract, respectively. No patient had late grade 3 GI toxicity, and the GU grade 3 toxicity incidence was 5.8% at 5 years. 5-year BDSF was 90.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

A modulated and intensified adjuvant treatment in PCa was feasible in this trial. A further period of observation can provide a complete assessment of late toxicity and confirm the BDSF positive results.

Optimising the dosimetric quality and efficiency of post-prostatectomy radiotherapy: a planning study comparing the performance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with an optimised seven-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) technique

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate radiotherapy treatment plans using volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for post-prostatectomy radiotherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The quality of radiotherapy plans for 10 patients planned and treated with a seven-field IMRT technique for biochemical failure post-prostatectomy were subsequently compared with 10 prospectively planned single-arc VMAT plans using the same computed tomography data set and treatment planning software. Plans were analysed using parameters to assess for target volume coverage, dose to organs at risk (OAR), biological outcomes, dose conformity and homogeneity, as well as the total monitor units (MU), planning and treatment efficiency.

RESULTS

The mean results for the study population are reported for the purpose of comparison. For IMRT, the median dose to the planning target volume, V(95%) and D(95%) was 71.1 Gy, 98.9% and 68.3 Gy compared with 71.2 Gy, 99.2% and 68.6 Gy for VMAT. There was no significant difference in the conformity index or homogeneity index. The VMAT plans achieved better sparing of the rectum and the left and right femora with a reduction in the median dose by 7.9, 6.3 and 3.6 Gy, respectively. The total number of monitor units (MU) was reduced by 24% and treatment delivery time by an estimated 3 min per fraction without a significant increase in planning requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

VMAT can achieve post-prostatectomy radiotherapy plans of comparable quality to IMRT with the potential to reduce dose to OAR and improve the efficiency of treatment delivery.

Three Years of Salvage IMRT for Prostate Cancer: Results of the Montpellier Cancer Center

Background. To assess the feasibility of salvage intensity-modulated radiation Therapy (IMRT) and to examine clinical outcome. Patients and Methods. 57 patients were treated with salvage IMRT to the prostate bed in our center from January, 2007, to February, 2010. The mean prescription dose was 68 Gy in 34 fractions. Forty-four patients received concomitant androgen deprivation. Results. Doses to organs at risk were low without altering target volume coverage. Salvage IMRT was feasible without any grade 3 or 4 acute gastrointestinal or urinary toxicity. With a median follow-up of 21 months, one grade 2 urinary and 1 grade ≥2 rectal late toxicities were reported. Biological relapse-free survival was 96.5% (2.3% (1/44) relapsed with androgen suppression and 7.7% (1/13) without). Conclusion. Salvage IMRT is feasible and results in low acute and chronic side-effects. Longer follow-up is warranted to draw conclusions in terms of oncologic control.

Comparative dosimetric and radiobiological assessment among a nonstandard RapidArc, standard RapidArc, classical intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and 3D brachytherapy for the treatment of the vaginal vault in patients affected by gynecologic cancer

To evaluate a nonstandard RapidArc (RA) modality as alternative to high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BRT) or IMRT treatments of the vaginal vault in patients with gynecological cancer (GC). Nonstandard (with vaginal applicator) and standard (without vaginal applicator) RapidArc plans for 27 women with GC were developed to compare with HDR-BRT and IMRT. Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison were performed by means of dose-volume histogram and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) for planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs). In addition, the integral dose and the overall treatment times were evaluated. RA, as well as IMRT, results in a high uniform dose on PTV compared with HDR-BRT. However, the average of EUD for HDR-BRT was significantly higher than those with RA and IMRT. With respect to the OARs, standard RA was equivalent of IMRT but inferior to HDR-BRT. Furthermore, nonstandard RA was comparable with IMRT for bladder and sigmoid and better than HDR-BRT for the rectum because of a significant reduction of d(2cc), d(1cc), and d(max) (p < 0.01). Integral doses were always higher than HDR-BRT, although the values were very low. Delivery times were about the same and more than double for HDR-BRT compared with IMRT and RA, respectively. In conclusion, the boost of dose on vaginal vault in patients affected by GC delivered by a nonstandard RA technique was a reasonable alternative to the conventional HDR-BRT because of a reduction of delivery time and rectal dose at substantial comparable doses for the bladder and sigmoid. However HDR-BRT provides better performance in terms of PTV coverage as evidenced by a greater EUD.