Dosimetric analysis and comparison of IMRT and HDR brachytherapy in treatment of localized prostate cancer

The value of brachytherapy in the age of advanced external beam radiotherapy: a review of the literature in terms of dosimetry

Brachytherapy (BT) has long been used for successful treatment of various tumour entities, including prostate, breast and gynaecological cancer. However, particularly due to advances in modern external beam techniques such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volume modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), there are concerns about its future. Based on a comprehensive literature review, this article aims to summarize the role of BT in cancer treatment and highlight its particular dosimetric advantages. The authors conclude that image-guided BT supported by inverse dose planning will successfully compete with high-tech EBRT in the future and continue to serve as a valuable modality for cancer treatment.

A quantitative assessment of the consequences of allowing dose heterogeneity in prostate radiation therapy planning

Target dose uniformity has been historically an aim of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning. However, for some sites, this may not be strictly necessary and removing this constraint could theoretically improve organ‐at‐risk (OAR) sparing and tumor control probability (TCP). This study systematically investigates the consequences of PTV dose uniformity that results from the application or removal of an upper dose constraint (UDC) in the inverse planning process for prostate VMAT treatments. OAR sparing, target coverage, hotspots, and plan complexity were compared between prostate VMAT plans with and without the PTV UDC optimized using the progressive resolution optimizer (PRO, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). Removing the PTV UDC, the median D1cc reached 144.6% for the CTV and the PTV, and an average increase of 3.2% TCP was demonstrated, while CTV and PTV coverage evaluated by D99% was decreased by less than 0.6% with statistical significance. Moreover, systematic improvement in the rectum dose volume histograms was shown (a 5–10% decrease in the volume receiving 50% to 75% prescribed dose), resulting in an average decrease of 1.3% (P < 0.01) in the rectum normal tissue complication probability. Additional consequences included potentially increased dose to the urethra as evaluated by PTV D0.035cc (median: 153.4%), delivering 283 extra monitor units (MUs), and slightly higher degrees of modulation. In general, the results were consistent when a different optimizer (Photon Optimizer, Varian Medical Systems) was used. In conclusion, removing the PTV UDC is acceptable for localized prostate cases given the systematic improvement of rectal dose and TCP. It can be particularly useful for cases that do not meet the rectum dose constraints with the PTV UDC on. This comes with the foreseeable consequences of increased dose heterogeneity in the PTV and an increase in MUs and plan complexity. It also has a higher requirement for reproducing the position and size of the target and OARs during treatment. Finally, with the PTV UDC completely removed, in some cases the maximum doses within the PTV did approach levels that may be of concern for urethral toxicity and therefore in clinical implementation it may still be necessary to include a PTV UDC, but one based on limiting toxicity rather than enforcing dose homogeneity.

Analysis of high-dose rate brachytherapy dose distribution resemblance in CyberKnife hypofractionated treatment plans of localized prostate cancer

The present study is to analyze the CyberKnife hypofractionated dose distribution of localized prostate cancer in terms of high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy equivalent doses to assess the degree of HDR brachytherapy resemblance of CyberKnife dose distribution. Thirteen randomly selected localized prostate cancer cases treated using CyberKnife with a dose regimen of 36.25Gy in 5 fractions were considered. HDR equivalent doses were calculated for 30Gy in 3 fractions of HDR brachytherapy regimen. The D5% of the target in the CyberKnife hypofractionation was 41.57 ± 2.41Gy. The corresponding HDR fractionation (3 fractions) equivalent dose was 32.81 ± 1.86Gy. The mean HDR fractionation equivalent dose, D98%, was 27.93 ± 0.84Gy. The V100% of the prostate target was 95.57% ± 3.47%. The V100% of the bladder and the rectum were 717.16 and 79.6mm(3), respectively. Analysis of the HDR equivalent dose of CyberKnife dose distribution indicates a comparable resemblance to HDR dose distribution in the peripheral target doses (D98% to D80%) reported in the literature. However, there is a substantial difference observed in the core high-dose regions especially in D10% and D5%. The dose fall-off within the OAR is also superior in reported HDR dose distribution than the HDR equivalent doses of CyberKnife.

Equivalent normalized total dose estimates in cyberknife radiotherapy dose delivery in prostate cancer hypofractionation regimens

As the α/β value of prostate is very small and lower than the surrounding critical organs, hypofractionated radiotherapy became a vital mode of treatment of prostate cancer. Cyberknife (Accuray Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) treatment for localized prostate cancer is performed in hypofractionated dose regimen alone. Effective dose escalation in the hypofractionated regimen can be estimated if the corresponding conventional 2 Gy per fraction equivalent normalized total dose (NTD) distribution is known. The present study aims to analyze the hypofractionated dose distribution of localized prostate cancer in terms of equivalent NTD. Randomly selected 12 localized prostate cases treated in cyberknife with a dose regimen of 36.25 Gy in 5 fractions were considered. The 2 Gy per fraction equivalent NTDs were calculated using the formula derived from the linear quadratic (LQ) model. Dose distributions were analyzed with the corresponding NTDs. The conformity index for the prescribed target dose of 36.25 Gy equivalent to the NTD dose of 90.63 Gy (α/β = 1.5) or 74.31 Gy (α/β = 3) was ranging between 1.15 and 1.73 with a mean value of 1.32 ± 0.15. The D5% of the target was 111.41 ± 8.66 Gy for α/β = 1.5 and 90.15 ± 6.57 Gy for α/β = 3. Similarly, the D95% was 91.98 ± 3.77 Gy for α/β = 1.5 and 75.35 ± 2.88 Gy for α/β = 3. The mean values of bladder and rectal volume receiving the prescribed dose of 36.25 Gy were 0.83 cm3 and 0.086 cm3, respectively. NTD dose analysis shows an escalated dose distribution within the target for low α/β (1.5 Gy) with reasonable sparing of organs at risk. However, the higher α/β of prostate (3 Gy) is not encouraging the fact of dose escalation in cyberknife hypofractionated dose regimen of localized prostate cancer.