Evaluation of VMAT Planning Strategies for Prostate Patients with Bilateral Hip Prosthesis

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) in prostate cancer in the presence of hip prosthesis - is it a contraindication? A narrative review

Hip replacement is a common orthopedic surgery in the aging population. With the rising incidence of prostate cancer, metallic hip prosthetics can cause considerable beam hardening and streak artifacts, leading to difficulty in identifying the target volumes and planning process for radiation treatment. The growing use of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) to treat prostate cancer is now well established. However, the use of this treatment modality in the presence of a hip prosthesis is poorly understood. There is enough literature on planning for external beam radiation treatment without any difficulties in the presence of hip prosthesis with conventional or Hypofractionated treatment. However, there is a shortage of literature on the impact of the prosthesis in SBRT planning, and there is a need for further understanding and measures to mitigate the obstacles in planning for SBRT in the presence of hip prosthesis. We present our review of the intricacies that need to be understood while considering SBRT in the presence of hip prostheses in prostate cancer treatment.

Evaluation of the Treatment Planning and Delivery for Hip Implant Cases on Tomotherapy

Purpose

The metal present in the implant creates artifacts during the treatment simulation, which impacts the treatment planning and delivery of the prescribed dose to the target and sparing normal tissues. This retrospective study evaluated the uncertainties in the planning and delivery of doses for prosthesis cases with dedicated phantom.

Materials and Methods

In this retrospective study, 11 patients with a hip prosthesis having cervix carcinoma were selected. Two treatment plans were generated on treatment planning system (TPS) for each case. Plan_No_Res was without any beam restriction, and Plan_exit_only was the plan with restricted beam entry through the metallic implant. An indigenous phantom was utilized to verify the accuracy of the treatment. In the phantom, some groves were present, which could be filled by implants that mimic the patient's geometries, like left, right and bilateral femur implants. The delivered doses were recorded using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs), which were placed at different positions in the phantom. The plans were further calculated using megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) scans acquired during treatment.

Results

The patient data showed no significant dose changes between the two planning methods. The treatment time increases from 412.18 ± 86.65 to 427.36 ± 104.80 with P = 0.03 for Plan_No_Res and Plan_exit_only, respectively. The difference between planned and delivered doses of various points across phantom geometries was within ± 9.5% in each case as left, right, and bilateral implant. The variations between OSLDs and MVCT calculated doses were also within ± 10.8%.

Conclusion

The study showed the competency of tomotherapy planning for hip prosthesis cases. The phantom measurements demonstrate the errors in dosimetry near the implant material, suggesting the need for precise methods to deal with artifact-related issues.

The Role of Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer in the Setting of Hip Prosthesis

PURPOSE

Given that the current standard of proton therapy (PT) for prostate cancer is through bilateral beams, this modality is typically avoided when it comes to treatment of patients with hip prosthesis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether novel PT methods, i.e., anterior proton beams and proton arc therapy (PArc), could be feasible options to treat this patient subpopulation. We evaluate PT methods in the context of dosimetry and robustness and compare with standard of practice volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to explore any potential benefits.

METHODS

Two PT and one VMAT treatment plans were retrospectively created for 10 patients who participated in a clinical trial with a weekly repeat CT (rCT) imaging component. All plans were robustly optimized and featured: (1) combination anterior oblique and lateral proton beams (AoL), (2) PArc, and (3) VMAT. All patients had hydrogel spacers in place, which enabled safe application of anterior proton beams. The planned dose was 70 Gy (RBE) to the entire prostate gland and 50 Gy (RBE) to the proximal seminal vesicles in 28 fractions. Along with plan dose-volume metrics, robustness to setup and interfractional variations were evaluated using the weekly rCT images. The linear energy transfer (LET)-weighted dose was evaluated for PArc plans to ensure urethra sparing given the typical high-LET region at the end of range.

RESULTS

Both PT methods were dosimetrically feasible and provided reduction of some key OAR metrics compared to VMAT except for penile bulb, while providing equally good target coverage. Significant differences in median rectum V35 (22-25%), penile bulb Dmean (5 Gy), rectum V61 (2%), right femoral head Dmean (5 Gy), and bladder V39 (4%) were found between PT and VMAT. All plans were equally robust to variations. LET-weighted dose in urethra was equivalent to the physical dose for PArc plans and hence no added urethral toxicity was expected.

CONCLUSIONS

PT for treatment of prostate cancer patients with hip prosthesis is feasible and equivalent or potentially superior to VMAT in quality in some cases. The choice of radiotherapy regimen can be personalized based on patient characteristics to achieve the best treatment outcome.

Minimizing the Risk of Acute Skin Toxicity Due to Hip Prosthesis Avoidance in Prostate Radiation Therapy

Limiting the entrance dose through hip prostheses to improve dosimetric accuracy can result in unfavorable skin toxicity. We propose a volumetric modulated arc therapy solution that strikes a better balance between dose accuracy and skin dosimetry. Our current planning strategy limits the entrance dose through hip prostheses using stringent optimization objectives on an avoidance structure. Avoidance efficiency is evaluated by recalculating the plan with prosthesis density set at 20 g/cc, and evaluating the loss of target coverage from increased attenuation. We require this loss to be ≤5% of the original values. This approach has resulted in an uncommon skin toxicity for a prostate-bed patient with bilateral hip prostheses. Thus, the dosimetric tradeoffs between skin dose and prosthesis avoidance were investigated by incrementally reducing prosthesis avoidance to achieve maximum skin doses (D_max) between 30 and 50 Gy. When prosthesis avoidance is prioritized, the skin dose increases and the target dose coverage and conformity decrease. A large degradation in target coverage for plans with the lowest skin D_max of 30 to 35 Gy indicates that a significant proportion of the target dose arises from beams entering the prostheses. The plan with a skin D_max of 40 Gy provides a better compromise between skin and prosthesis entrance doses, with a <20% reduction in target coverage at an increased prosthesis density of 20 g/cm³. Skin dose needs to be considered when using prosthesis avoidance planning strategies. Allowing for a minimal dose through the prosthesis may be required to restrict skin dose and reduce the risk of toxicity.