De Ornelas M, Iorio GC, Bossart E, Ricardi U, Seldon C, Dal Pra A, Butkus M. Bone marrow sparing in prostate cancer patients treated with Post-operative pelvic nodal radiotherapy - A proton versus photon comparison.
Phys Med 2023;
112:102644. [PMID:
37487297 DOI:
10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.102644]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2022] [Revised: 05/19/2023] [Accepted: 07/07/2023] [Indexed: 07/26/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE
Extending salvage radiotherapy to treat the pelvic lymph nodes (PLNRT) improves oncologic outcomes in prostate cancer (PCa). However, a larger treatment volume increases the extent of bone marrow (BM) exposure, which is associated with hematologic toxicity (HT). Given the potential long-term impact of BM dose in PCa, clinical studies on BM sparing (BMS) are warranted. Herein, we dosimetrically compared photon and proton plans for BMS.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Treatment plans of 20 post-operative PCa patients treated with volumetric-modulated arc photon therapy (VMAT) PLNRT were retrospectively identified. Contours were added for the whole pelvis BM (WPBM) and BM sub-volumes: lumbar-sacral (LSBM), iliac (ILBM), and lower pelvis (LPBM). Three additional plans were created: VMAT_BMS, intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), and IMPT_BMS. Normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCP) for grade >3 hematologic toxicity (HT3+) were calculated for the WPBM volumes.
RESULTS
Compared to the original VMAT plan, mean doses to all BM sub-volumes were statistically significantly lower for VMAT_BMS, IMPT, and IMPT_BMS resulting in average NTCP percentages of 20.5 ± 5.9, 10.7 ± 4.2, 6.1 ± 2.0, and 2.5 ± 0.6, respectively. IMPT_BMS had significantly lower low dose metrics (V300cGy-V2000cGy) for WPBM and sub-volumes except for LPBM V2000cGy compared to VMAT_BMS and ILBM V20Gy compared to IMPT. In most cases, V4000cGy and V5000cGy within ILBM and LSBM were significantly higher for IMPT plans compared to VMAT plans.
CONCLUSIONS
BMS plans are achievable with VMAT and IMPT without compromising target coverage or OARs constraints. IMPT plans were overall better at reducing mean and NTCP for HT3+ as well as low dose volumes to BM. However, IMPT had larger high dose volumes within LSBM and ILBM. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the clinical implications of these findings.
Collapse