Comparison of Radiobiological Models for Radiation Therapy Plans of Prostate Cancer: Three-dimensional Conformal versus Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

Proton versus photon therapy for high-risk prostate cancer with dose escalation of dominant intraprostatic lesions: a preliminary planning study

Background and purpose

This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of safe-dose escalation to dominant intraprostatic lesions (DILs) and assess the clinical impact using dose-volume (DV) and biological metrics in photon and proton therapy. Biological parameters defined as late grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) derived from planned (D P) and accumulated dose (D A) were utilized.

Materials and methods

In total, 10 patients with high-risk prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI-defined DILs were investigated. Each patient had two plans with a focal boost to the DILs using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Plans were optimized to obtain DIL coverage while respecting the mandatory organ-at-risk constraints. For the planning evaluation, DV metrics, tumor control probability (TCP) for the DILs and whole prostate excluding the DILs (prostate-DILs), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for the rectum and bladder were calculated. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for analyzing TCP and NTCP data.

Results

IMPT achieved a higher Dmean for the DILs compared to VMAT (IMPT: 68.1 GyRBE vs. VMAT: 66.6 Gy, p < 0.05). Intermediate-high rectal and bladder doses were lower for IMPT (p < 0.05), while the high-dose region (V60 Gy) remained comparable. IMPT-TCP for prostate-DIL were higher compared to VMAT (IMPT: 86%; α/β = 3, 94.3%; α/β = 1.5 vs. VMAT: 84.7%; α/β = 3, 93.9%; α/β = 1.5, p < 0.05). Likewise, IMPT obtained a moderately higher DIL TCP (IMPT: 97%; α/β = 3, 99.3%; α/β = 1.5 vs. VMAT: 95.9%; α/β = 3, 98.9%; α/β = 1.5, p < 0.05). Rectal D A-NTCP displayed the highest GI toxicity risk at 5.6%, and IMPT has a lower GI toxicity risk compared to VMAT-predicted Quantec-NTCP (p < 0.05). Bladder D P-NTCP projected a higher GU toxicity than D A-NTCP, with VMAT having the highest risk (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Dose escalation using IMPT is able to achieve a high TCP for the DILs, with the lowest rectal and bladder DV doses at the intermediate-high-dose range. The reduction in physical dose was translated into a lower NTCP (p < 0.05) for the bladder, although rectal toxicity remained equivalent.

Dosimetric comparison between stereotactic body radiotherapy and carbon-ion radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Background

Prostate cancer rates have been steadily increasing in recent years. As high-precision radiation therapy methods, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and carbon-ion radiation therapy (CIRT) have unique advantages. Analyzing the dosimetric differences between SBRT and CIRT in the treatment of localized prostate cancer can help provide patients with more accurate, individualized treatment plans.

Methods

We selected computed tomography positioning images and the contours of target volumes of 16 patients with localized prostate cancer who received radiotherapy. We delineated the organs at risk (OARs) on the CyberKnife (CK) treatment planning system (TPS) MultiPlan4.0, which were imported into the CIRT uniform scanning TPS HIMM-1 ci-Plan. Two treatment plans, SBRT and CIRT, were designed for the same patient, and we used SPSS 22.0 for the statistical analysis of data.

Results

Both SBRT and CIRT plans met the prescribed dose requirements. In terms of target volume exposure dose, D2 (P<0.001), D5 (P<0.001), D50 (P<0.001), D90 (P=0.029), D95 (P<0.001), D98 (P<0.001), and Dmean (P<0.001) under SBRT were significantly higher than those under CIRT; the conformity index (CI) under SBRT was significantly better than that under CIRT (P<0.001); the target volume coverage rate (V95%) and dose homogeneity index (HI) under CIRT were significantly better than those under SBRT (P<0.001). In terms of OAR exposure dosage, the Dmax of the bladder and rectum under SBRT was significantly lower than that under CIRT (P<0.001), but Dmean was in the other direction; the exposure dose of the intestinal tract under CIRT was significantly lower than that under SBRT (P<0.05); Dmax of the femoral head under CIRT was significantly lower than that under SBRT (P<0.05), and there was no statistical difference between them at other doses.

Conclusions

In this study, we found that when CIRT was used for treating localized prostate cancer, the dose distribution in target volume was more homogeneous and the coverage rate was higher; the average dose of OARs was lower. SBRT had a better CI and higher dose in target volume; the dose hotspot was lower in OARs. It is important to comprehensively consider the dose relationship between local tumor and surrounding tissues when selecting treatment plans.

Predictive modelling for late rectal and urinary toxicities after prostate radiotherapy using planned and delivered dose

Background and purpose

Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) parameters derived from traditional 3D plans may not be ideal in defining toxicity outcomes for modern radiotherapy techniques. This study aimed to derive parameters of the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) NTCP model using prospectively scored clinical data for late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities for high-risk prostate cancer patients treated using volumetric-modulated-arc-therapy (VMAT). Dose-volume-histograms (DVH) extracted from planned (D_P) and accumulated dose (D_A) were used.

Material and methods

D_P and D_A obtained from the DVH of 150 prostate cancer patients with pelvic-lymph-nodes irradiation treated using VMAT were used to generate LKB-NTCP parameters using maximum likelihood estimations. Defined GI and GU toxicities were recorded up to 3-years post RT follow-up. Model performance was measured using Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test and the mean area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). Bootstrapping method was used for internal validation.

Results

For mild-severe (Grade ≥1) GI toxicity, the model generated similar parameters based on D_A and D_P DVH data (D_A-D₅₀:71.6 Gy vs D_P-D₅₀:73.4; D_A-m:0.17 vs D_P-m:0.19 and D_A/P-n 0.04). The 95% CI for D_A-D₅₀ was narrower and achieved an AUC of >0.6. For moderate-severe (Grade ≥2) GI toxicity, D_A-D₅₀ parameter was higher and had a narrower 95% CI (D_A-D₅₀:77.9 Gy, 95% CI:76.4-79.6 Gy vs D_P-D₅₀:74.6, 95% CI:69.1-85.4 Gy) with good model performance (AUC>0.7). For Grade ≥1 late GU toxicity, D₅₀ and n parameters for D_A and D_P were similar (D_A-D₅₀: 58.8 Gy vs D_P-D₅₀: 59.5 Gy; D_A-n: 0.21 vs D_P-n: 0.19) with a low AUC of<0.6. For Grade ≥2 late GU toxicity, similar NTCP parameters were attained from D_A and D_P DVH data (D_A-D₅₀:81.7 Gy vs D_P-D₅₀:81.9 Gy; D_A-n:0.12 vs D_P-n:0.14) with an acceptable AUCs of >0.6.

Conclusions

The achieved NTCP parameters using modern RT techniques and accounting for organ motion differs from QUANTEC reported parameters. D_A-D₅₀ of 77.9 Gy for GI and D_A/D_P-D₅₀ of 81.7-81.9 Gy for GU demonstrated good predictability in determining the risk of Grade ≥2 toxicities especially for GI derived D₅₀ and are recommended to incorporate as part of the DV planning constraints to guide dose escalation strategies while minimising the risk of toxicity.

Assessment of Field-in-Field, 3-Field, and 4-Field Treatment Planning Methods for Radiotherapy of Gastro-Esophageal Junction Cancer

Background

Gastro-esophageal (GE) junction cancer is the fastest-growing tumor, particularly in the United States (US).

Objective

This study aimed to compare dosimetric and radiobiological factors among field-in-field (FIF), three-field (3F), and four-field box (4FB) radiotherapy planning techniques for gastro-esophageal junction cancer.

Material and Methods

In this experimental study, thirty patients with GE junction cancer were evaluated, and three planning techniques (field-in-field (FIF), three-field (3F), and four-field box (4FB)) were performed for each patient for a 6-MV photon beam. Dose distribution in the target volume, the monitor units (MUs) required, and the dose delivered to organs at risk (OARs) were compared for these techniques using the paired-sample t-test.

Results

A significant difference was measured between the FIF and 3F techniques with respect to conformity index (CI), dose homogeneity index (HI), and tumor control probability (TCP) for the target organ, as well as the D_mean for the heart, kidneys, and liver. For the spinal cord, the FIF technique showed a slight reduction in the maximum dose compared to the other two techniques. In addition, the V_{20 Gy} of the lungs and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of all OARs were reduced with FIF method.

Conclusion

The FIF technique showed better performance for treating patients with gastro-esophageal junction tumors, in terms of dose homogeneity in the target, conformity of the radiation field with the target volume, TCP, less dose to healthy organs, and fewer MU.

Pediatric Craniospinal Irradiation - The implementation and Use of Normal Tissue Complication Probability in Comparing Photon versus Proton Planning

Purpose:

The preferred radiotherapy treatment for medulloblastoma is craniospinal irradiation (CSI). With the aim of developing the potential to reduce normal tissue dose and associated post-treatment complications with photon and proton radiotherapy techniques for CSI. This report aims to carefully compare and rank treatment planning and dosimetric outcomes for pediatric medulloblastoma patients using normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) formalism between photon (three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy [IMRT], volumetric-modulated arc therapy [VMAT], and HT) and proton CSI.

Methods and Materials:

The treatment data of eight pediatric patients who typically received CSI treatment were used in this study. The patients were 7 years of age on average, with ages ranging from 3 to 11 years. A prescription dose of 3600 cGy was delivered in 20 fractions by the established planning methods. The Niemierko's and Lyman–Kutcher–Burman models were followed to carefully estimate NTCP and compare different treatment plans.

Results:

The NTCP of VMAT plans in upper and middle thoracic volumes was relatively high compared to helical tomotherapy (HT) and pencil beam scanning (PBS) (all P < 0.05). PBS rather than IMRT and VMAT in the middle thoracic region (P < 0.06) could significantly reduce the NTCP of the heart. PBS significantly reduced NTCP of the lungs and liver (all P < 0.05).

Conclusion:

The NTCP and tumor control probability (TCP) model-based plan ranking along with dosimetric indices will help the clinical practitioner or medical physicists to choose the best treatment plan for each patient based on their anatomical or clinical challenges.

Prostate cancer tumour control probability modelling for external beam radiotherapy based on multi-parametric MRI-GTV definition

Purpose

To evaluate the applicability and estimate the radiobiological parameters of linear-quadratic Poisson tumour control probability (TCP) model for primary prostate cancer patients for two relevant target structures (prostate gland and GTV). The TCP describes the dose–response of prostate after definitive radiotherapy (RT). Also, to analyse and identify possible significant correlations between clinical and treatment factors such as planned dose to prostate gland, dose to GTV, volume of prostate and mpMRI-GTV based on multivariate logistic regression model.

Methods

The study included 129 intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer patients (cN0 and cM0), who were treated with image-guided intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) ± androgen deprivation therapy with a median follow-up period of 81.4 months (range 42.0–149.0) months. Tumour control was defined as biochemical relapse free survival according to the Phoenix definition (BRFS). MpMRI-GTV was delineated retrospectively based on a pre-treatment multi-parametric MR imaging (mpMRI), which was co-registered to the planning CT. The clinical treatment planning procedure was based on prostate gland, delineated on CT imaging modality. Furthermore, we also fitted the clinical data to TCP model for the two considered targets for the 5-year follow-up after radiation treatment, where our cohort was composed of a total number of 108 patients, of which 19 were biochemical relapse (BR) patients.

Results

For the median follow-up period of 81.4 months (range 42.0–149.0) months, our results indicated an appropriate α/β = 1.3 Gy for prostate gland and α/β = 2.9 Gy for mpMRI-GTV. Only for prostate gland, EQD2 and gEUD2Gy were significantly lower in the biochemical relapse (BR) group compared to the biochemical control (BC) group. Fitting results to the linear-quadratic Poisson TCP model for prostate gland and α/β = 1.3 Gy were D₅₀ = 66.8 Gy with 95% CI [64.6 Gy, 69.0 Gy], and γ = 3.8 with 95% CI [2.6, 5.2]. For mpMRI-GTV and α/β = 2.9 Gy, D₅₀ was 68.1 Gy with 95% CI [66.1 Gy, 70.0 Gy], and γ = 4.5 with 95% CI [3.0, 6.1]. Finally, for the 5-year follow-up after the radiation treatment, our results for the prostate gland were: D₅₀ = 64.6 Gy [61.6 Gy, 67.4 Gy], γ = 3.1 [2.0, 4.4], α/β = 2.2 Gy (95% CI was undefined). For the mpMRI-GTV, the optimizer was unable to deliver any reasonable results for the expected clinical D₅₀ and α/β. The results for the mpMRI-GTV were D₅₀ = 50.1 Gy [44.6 Gy, 56.0 Gy], γ = 0.8 [0.5, 1.2], α/β = 0.0 Gy (95% CI was undefined). For a follow-up time of 5 years and a fixed α/β = 1.6 Gy, the TCP fitting results for prostate gland were D₅₀ = 63.9 Gy [60.8 Gy, 67.0 Gy], γ = 2.9 [1.9, 4.1], and for mpMRI-GTV D₅₀ = 56.3 Gy [51.6 Gy, 61.1 Gy], γ = 1.3 [0.8, 1.9].

Conclusion

The linear-quadratic Poisson TCP model was better fit when the prostate gland was considered as responsible target than with mpMRI-GTV. This is compatible with the results of the comparison of the dose distributions among BR and BC groups and with the results achieved with the multivariate logistic model regarding gEUD_2Gy. Probably limitations of mpMRI in defining the GTV explain these results. Another explanation could be the relatively homogeneous dose prescription and the relatively low number of recurrences. The failure to identify any benefit for considering mpMRI-GTV as the target responsible for the clinical response is confirmed when considering a fixed α/β = 1.6 Gy, a fixed follow-up time for biochemical response at 5 years or Gleason score differentiation.

Evaluation of various common prostate IMRT techniques based on estimated tumor control and normal tissue complication probabilities in correlation with patients anatomical parameters derived from the CT scans

Background: The relationship between the prostate IMRT techniques and patients anatomical parameters has been rarely investigated.

Objective: to evaluate various prostate IMRT techniques based on tumor control and normal tissue complication probability (TCP and NTCP) values and also the correlation of such techniques with patients anatomical parameters. Methods: Four IMRT techniques (9, 7 and 5 fields and also automatic) were planned on the CT scans of 63 prostate cancer patients. The sum of distances between the organs at risk (OARs) and target tissue and also their average joint volumes were measured and assumed as anatomical parameters. Selected dosimetric and radiobiological parameters (TCP and NTCP) values were compared among various techniques and the correlation with the above anatomical parameters were assessed using Pearsons’ correlation.

Results: High correlations were found between the dosimetric/radiobiological parameters of OARs with the joint volumes and with the distances between the OARs and target tissue in all the techniques. The TCP and complication free tumor control probability (P+) values were decreased with increasing the joint volume and decreasing the distances between the OARs and target tissue (as poly-nominal functions). The NTCP values were increased with increasing the joint volumes and decreasing the distances (3-degree poly-nominal functions). For the low percent joint volumes (<20%) and high distances (>7 cm), The TCP, NTCP and P+ showed no statistical differences between various techniques (P-value>0.07). However, 9 and 7 fields techniques indicated better radiobiological results (P-value<0.05) in almost other ranges (>20% joint volumes and <7 cm distances).

Conclusion: Based on our results, it would be possible to compare radiobiological effects of various common IMRT techniques and choose the best one regarding to patients anatomical parameters derived from the CT scans.