Dosimetric comparison among cyberknife, helical tomotherapy and VMAT for hypofractionated treatment in localized prostate cancer

Comparative analysis of dose calculation algorithms for CyberKnife-based stereotactic radiotherapy in lung cancer

Purpose

The accuracy of dose calculation is the prerequisite for CyberKnife (CK) to implement precise stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). In this study, CK-MLC treatment planning for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were compared using finite-size pencil beam (FSPB) algorithm, FSPB with lateral scaling option (FSPB_LS) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms, respectively. We concentrated on the enhancement of accuracy with the FSPB_LS algorithm over the conventional FSPB algorithm and the dose consistency with the MC algorithm.

Methods

In this study, 54 cases of NSCLC were subdivided into central lung cancer (CLC, n=26) and ultra-central lung cancer (UCLC, n=28). For each patient, we used the FSPB algorithm to generate a treatment plan. Then the dose was recalculated using FSPB_LS and MC dose algorithms based on the plans computed using the FSPB algorithm. The resultant plans were assessed by calculating the mean value of pertinent comparative parameters, including PTV prescription isodose, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), and dose-volume statistics of organs at risk (OARs).

Results

In this study, most dose parameters of PTV and OARs demonstrated a trend of MC > FSPB_LS > FSPB. The FSPB_LS algorithm aligns better with the dose parameters of the target compared to the MC algorithm, which is particularly evident in UCLC. However, the FSPB algorithm significantly underestimated the does of the target. Regarding the OARs in CLC, differences in dose parameters were observed between FSPB and FSPB_LS for V10 of the contralateral lung, as well as between FSPB and MC for mean dose (Dmean) of the contralateral lung and maximum dose (Dmax) of the aorta, exhibiting statistical differences. There were no statistically significant differences observed between FSPB_LS and MC for the OARs. However, the average dose deviation between FSPB_LS and MC algorithms for OARs ranged from 2.79% to 11.93%. No significant dose differences were observed among the three algorithms in UCLC.

Conclusion

For CLC, the FSPB_LS algorithm exhibited good consistency with the MC algorithm in PTV and demonstrated a significant improvement in accuracy when compared to the traditional FSPB algorithm. However, the FSPB_LS algorithm and the MC algorithm showed a significant dose deviation in OARs of CLC. In the case of UCLC, FSPB_LS showed better consistency with the MC algorithm than observed in CLC. Notwithstanding, UCLC's OARs were highly sensitive to radiation dose and could result in potentially serious adverse reactions. Consequently, it is advisable to use the MC algorithm for dose calculation in both CLC and UCLC, while the application of FSPB_LS algorithm should be carefully considered.

Helical tomotherapy and two types of volumetric modulated arc therapy: dosimetric and clinical comparison for several cancer sites

Radiotherapy accelerators have undergone continuous technological developments. We investigated the differences between Radixact™ and VMAT treatment plans. Sixty patients were included in this study. Dosimetric comparison between the Radixact™ and VMAT plans was performed for six cancer sites: whole-brain, head and neck, lymphoma, lung, prostate, and rectum. The VMAT plans were generated with two Elekta linear accelerators (Synergy^® and Versa HD™). The planning target volume (PTV) coverage, organs-at-risk dose constraints, and four dosimetric indexes were considered. The deliverability of the plans was assessed using quality assurance (gamma index evaluation) measurements; clinical judgment was included in the assessment. The mean AAPM TG218 (3%-2 mm, global normalization) gamma index values were 99.4%, 97.8%, and 96.6% for Radixact™, Versa HD™, and Synergy®, respectively. Radixact™ performed better than Versa HD™ in terms of dosimetric indexes, hippocampi D_100%, spinal cord D_max, rectum V_{38.4  Gy}, bladder V_{30 Gy}, and V_{40 Gy}. Versa HD™ saved more of the (lungs-PTV) V_{5 Gy} and (lungs-PTV) D_mean, heart D_mean, breasts V_{4 Gy}, and bowel V_{45 Gy}. Regarding Synergy^®, the head and neck Radixact™ plan saved more of the parotid gland, oral cavity, and supraglottic larynx. From a clinical point of view, for the head and neck, prostate, and rectal sites, the Radixact™ and Versa HD™ plans were similar; Radixact™ plans were preferable for the head and neck and rectum to Synergy^® plans. The quality of linac plans has improved, and differences with tomotherapy have decreased. However, tomotherapy continues to be an essential add-on in multi-machine departments.

Salvage stereotactic reirradiation for intraprostatic cancer recurrence: A large retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men. Thirty to forty-seven percent of patients treated with exclusive radiotherapy for prostate cancer will experience intraprostate recurrence. The use of radiotherapy in stereotactic conditions allows millimetric accuracy in irradiation to the target zone that minimizes the dose to organs at risk. In this study, we evaluated the clinical outcome of prostatic reirradiation with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with intraprostatic recurrence initially treated by radiotherapy.

METHOD

This single-center retrospective study included 41 patients diagnosed with exclusive local recurrence of prostate cancer after radiotherapy and treatedby stereotactic Cyberknife irradiation. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and the safety of stereotactic reirradiation for patients with intraprostatic recurrence initially treated with radiotherapy.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 35 months. The 2-year biochemical relapse-free survival was 72.89%, the 2-year local recurrence free survival was 93.59%, the 2-year local regional recurrence-free survival was 85.24%, and the 2-year metastasis-free survival was to 91.49%. The analysis of toxicities showed a good tolerance of stereotactic irradiation. Urinary and gastro-intestinal adverse events was mostly of grades 1-2 (CTCAEv4). Grade 3 toxicity occurred in one to two patients.

CONCLUSION

Stereotactic reirradiation appears effective and well-tolerated for local recurrence of prostate cancer and might allow to delay the introduction of hormonal therapy and its side effects.

Moderately Hypofractionated Helical Tomotherapy for Prostate Cancer: Ten-year Experience of a Mono-institutional Series of 415 Patients

BACKGROUND/AIM

Radiotherapy represents an important therapeutic option in the management of prostate cancer (PCa). As helical tomotherapy may improve toxicity outcomes, we aimed to evaluate and report the toxicity and clinical outcomes of localized PCa patients treated with moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 415 patients affected by localized PCa and treated with moderately hypofractionated helical tomotherapy in our department from January 2008 to December 2020. All patients were stratified according to the D'Amico risk classification: low-risk 21%, favorable intermediate-risk 16%, unfavorable intermediate-risk 30.4%, and high-risk 32.6%. The dose prescription for high-risk patients was 72.8 Gy to the prostate (planning tumor volume-PTV1), 61.6 Gy to the seminal vesicles (PTV2), and 50.4 Gy to the pelvic lymph nodes (PTV3) in 28 fractions; for low- and intermediate-risk patients 70 Gy for PTV1, 56 Gy for PTV2, and 50.4 Gy for PTV3 in 28 fractions. Image-guided radiation therapy was performed daily in all patients by mega-voltage computed tomography. Forty-one percent of patients received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Acute and late toxicity was assessed according to the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.5.0 (CTCAE).

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 82.7 months (range=12-157 months) and the median age of patients at diagnosis was 72.5 years (range=49-84 years). The 3, 5, and 7 yr overall survival (OS) rates were 95%, 90%, and 84%, respectively, while 3, 5, and 7 yr disease-free survival (DFS) were 96%, 90%, and 87%, respectively. Acute toxicity was as follows: genitourinary (GU) G1 and G2 in 35.9% and 24%; gastrointestinal (GI) in 13.7% and 8%, with G3 or more acute toxicities less than 1%. The late GI toxicity G2 and G3 were 5.3% and 1%, respectively, and the late GU toxicity G2 and G3 were 4.8% and 2.1%, respectively, and only three patients had a G4 toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Hypofractionated helical tomotherapy for PCa treatment appeared to be safe and reliable, with favorable acute and late toxicity rates and encouraging results in terms of disease control.

A dosimetric comparison for SBRT plans of localized prostate cancer between Cyberknife and Varian Truebeam STX device

As the Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) approach began to increase in treating patients with localized prostate cancer, it became necessary to investigate which methods used in practice were better. The aim of this study is to perform a dosimetric comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of SBRT treatments for localized prostate cancer delivered by CyberKnife (CK) and Varian Truebeam STX (FF and FFF). Seventeen intermediate and high-risk patients with localized prostate cancer were included in the study. SBRT plans for the CK system and Varian Truebeam STX systems with and without Flattening Filters (Tru-FF and Tru-FFF) were prepared for each patient. Plans prepared for each patient were planned at a fraction dose of 6.7 Gy at 6 MV energy and a target dose of 33.5 Gy in 5 fractions. For all plans, cumulative dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were generated for target volumes and organs at risk (OAR). The maximum doses of PTV (41 Gy) in CK plans are higher than the maximum doses (35 Gy) in VMAT plans prepared with Tru-FF or Tru-FFF beams. The mean dose of the rectal wall (10.06 ± 2.40Gy for CK) is still relatively low compared to other plans (13.46 ± 2.16 Gy for Tru-FF and 13.61 ± 2.32 Gy for Tru-FFF). The bladder wall (14 Gy for CK, 26 Gy for Tru-FF and Tru-FFF) and femoral head (6.8 Gy for CK, 9 Gy for Tru-FF and 9.4 Gy Tru-FFF) doses were also lower for CK plans. The CK plans provide better tumour control due to low doses in critical organs and high target doses than the Tru-FF or Tru-FFF plans. It was observed that CK and VMAT plans for SBRT with 6 MV photon beams provided acceptable results in term of treatment planning criteria such as Conformity Index and Homogeneity Index. It is recommended to use a target tracking system to provide an accurate and reliable SBRT treatment with VMAT and CK techniques.

Reirradiation of Locally Recurrent Prostate Cancer with Cyberknife® System or Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and IGRT-Clarity®: Outcomes, Toxicities and Dosimetric Evaluation

The management of prostate cancer recurrence following external beam radiotherapy is not defined yet. Stereotaxic body reirradiation therapy showed encouraging results for local and biochemical control. From April 2017 to December 2020, 29 patients with prostate cancer recurrence were collected, joining the retrospective studies CyPro (prot. 46/19 OSS) and CLARO (Prot. 19/20 OSS) trials. Patients received Cyberknife® treatment (17 pts) or alternatively VMAT (Volumetric Modulated Arc Technique) therapy by IGRT (Image-Guided Radiation Therapy)/Clarity® (12 pts). By comparing the reirradiation of two groups, urinary (GU), rectal (GI) toxicities, and biochemical control were investigated. Further, the two techniques were dosimetrically compared by rival plans. The VMAT-IGRT Clarity® treatments were replanned with an optimized template developed for prostate VMAT-SBRT in FFF mode keeping the same dose and fractionation scheduled for Cyberknife Group (30 Gy in 5 fx, at 80% isodose). In the CK group, 23% of patients experienced grade 2 acute GU, while 6% grade 2 acute GI. In the VMAT-Clarity® group, acute GU toxicity was recorded in 17%, while for 8% grade 2 late toxicity was recorded. The dosimetric analysis shows that the VMAT-FFF allows to deliver a biological equivalent dose to CK, with the advantage of reducing the likelihood of toxicities arising.

SBRT for Localized Prostate Cancer: CyberKnife vs. VMAT-FFF, a Dosimetric Study

In recent years, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has gained popularity among clinical methods for the treatment of medium and low risk prostate cancer (PCa), mainly as an alternative to surgery. The hypo-fractionated regimen allows the administration of high doses of radiation in a small number of fractions; such a fractionation is possible by exploiting the different intrinsic prostate radiosensitivity compared with the surrounding healthy tissues. In addition, SBRT treatment guaranteed a better quality of life compared with surgery, avoiding risks, aftermaths, and possible complications. At present, most stereotactic prostate treatments are performed with the CyberKnife (CK) system, which is an accelerator exclusively dedicated for stereotaxis and it is not widely spread in every radiotherapy centre like a classic linear accelerator (LINAC). To be fair, a stereotactic treatment is achievable also by using a LINAC through Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), but some precautions must be taken. The aim of this work is to carry out a dosimetric comparison between these two methodologies. In order to pursue such a goal, two groups of patients were selected at Instituto Nazionale Tumori—IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale: the first group consisting of ten patients previously treated with a SBRT performed with CK; the second one was composed of ten patients who received a hypo-fractionated VMAT treatment and replanned in VMAT-SBRT flattening filter free mode (FFF). The two SBRT techniques were rescaled at the same target coverage and compared by normal tissue sparing, dose distribution parameters and delivery time. All organs at risk (OAR) constraints were achieved by both platforms. CK exhibits higher performances in terms of dose delivery; nevertheless, the general satisfying dosimetric results and the significantly shorter delivery time make VMAT-FFF an attractive and reasonable alternative SBRT technique for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Ultrahypofractionated Radiotherapy versus Conventional to Moderate Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer

The purpose of this study was to compare the toxicity (first endpoint) and efficacy (second endpoint) of ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy (UHF) and dose-escalated conventional to moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy (DeRT) for clinically localized prostate cancer. We compared 253 patients treated with UHF and 499 patients treated with DeRT using multi-institutional retrospective data. To analyze toxicity, we divided UHF into High-dose UHF (H-UHF; equivalent doses of 2 Gy per fraction: EQD2 > 100 Gy1.5) and low-dose UHF (L-UHF; EQD2 ≤ 100 Gy1.5). In toxicity, H-UHF elevated for 3 years accumulated late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity grade ≥ 2 (11.1% and 9.3%) more than L-UHF (3% and 1.2%) and DeRT (3.1% and 4.8%, p = 0.00126 and p = 0.00549). With median follow-up periods of 32.0 and 61.7 months, the actuarial 3-year biochemical failure-free survival rates were 100% (100% and 100% in the L-UHF and H-UHF) and 96.3% in the low-risk group, 96.5% (97.1% and 95.6%) and 94.9% in the intermediate-risk group, and 93.7% (100% and 94.6%) and 91.7% in the high-risk group in the UHF and DeRT groups, respectively. UHF showed equivocal efficacy, although not conclusive but suggestive due to a short follow-up period of UHF. L-UHF using EQD2 ≤ 100 Gy1.5 is a feasible UHF schedule with a good balance between toxicity and efficacy.

Hybrid Tomo-Helical and Tomo-Direct radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of the study is to present a new planning approach to provide better planning target volume (PTV) coverage and reduce bladder and rectum dose with hybrid Tomo-Helical (TH)/Tomo-Direct (TD) radiotherapy (RT) for localized prostate cancer (LPC).

METHODS

Twenty-five LPC patients were included in this retrospective study. TH plans, TD plans, and hybrid TH/TD plans were created. Lateral beams were used for the hybrid TD plan and the prescribed dose was 70 Gy in 28 fractions (hybrid plans were combined 45 Gy/ 18 fxs for TH and 25 Gy/10 fxs for TD). Doses of PTV (D2%, D98%, D50%, homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), coverage) and organs at risk (OARs) (V50%, V35%, V25%, V5%, and V95%) were analyzed. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to analyze the difference in dosimetric parameters. p-Value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

TH plans showed better CI, and target coverage (p < 0.01) than TD and hybrid plans in all patient plan evaluations. However, TD plans D2%, D98%, and D50% doses were better than TH and hybrid plans. The HI values were similar between the three plans. Significant reductions in bladder and rectum V50%, V35%, and V25% doses (p < 0.001) were observed with hybrid plans compared to TH and TD. Penile bulb V95% and bowel V5% doses were better in the hybrid plans. Left and right femoral head V5% doses were higher in the hybrid plan compared to others (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Concurrently hybrid TH/TD RT plan can be a good option to reduce the doses of the rectum and bladder in the RT of LPC.