Normal tissue complication probability: Does simultaneous integrated boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy score over other techniques in treatment of prostate adenocarcinoma

Dosimetric comparison of standard three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy followed by intensity-modulated radiotherapy boost schedule (sequential IMRT plan) with simultaneous integrated boost-IMRT (SIB IMRT) treatment plan in patients with localized carcinoma prostate

Aims:

Dosimeteric and radiobiological comparison of two radiation schedules in localized carcinoma prostate: Standard Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy (3DCRT) followed by Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) boost (sequential-IMRT) with Simultaneous Integrated Boost IMRT (SIB-IMRT).

Material and Methods:

Thirty patients were enrolled. In all, the target consisted of PTV P + SV (Prostate and seminal vesicles) and PTV LN (lymph nodes) where PTV refers to planning target volume and the critical structures included: bladder, rectum and small bowel. All patients were treated with sequential-IMRT plan, but for dosimetric comparison, SIB-IMRT plan was also created. The prescription dose to PTV P + SV was 74 Gy in both strategies but with different dose per fraction, however, the dose to PTV LN was 50 Gy delivered in 25 fractions over 5 weeks for sequential-IMRT and 54 Gy delivered in 27 fractions over 5.5 weeks for SIB-IMRT. The treatment plans were compared in terms of dose–volume histograms. Also, Tumor Control Probability (TCP) and Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) obtained with the two plans were compared.

Results:

The volume of rectum receiving 70 Gy or more (V > 70 Gy) was reduced to 18.23% with SIB-IMRT from 22.81% with sequential-IMRT. SIB-IMRT reduced the mean doses to both bladder and rectum by 13% and 17%, respectively, as compared to sequential-IMRT. NTCP of 0.86 ± 0.75% and 0.01 ± 0.02% for the bladder, 5.87 ± 2.58% and 4.31 ± 2.61% for the rectum and 8.83 ± 7.08% and 8.25 ± 7.98% for the bowel was seen with sequential-IMRT and SIB-IMRT plans respectively.

Conclusions:

For equal PTV coverage, SIB-IMRT markedly reduced doses to critical structures, therefore should be considered as the strategy for dose escalation. SIB-IMRT achieves lesser NTCP than sequential-IMRT.

Optimization of treatment planning parameters used in tomotherapy for prostate cancer patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Tomotherapy treatment planning depends on parameters that are not used conventionally such as: field width (FW), pitch factor (PF) and modulation factor (MF). The aim of this study is to analyze the relationship between these parameters and their influence on the quality of treatment plans and beam-on time.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ten prostate cancer patients were included in the study. For each patient, two cases of irradiation were considered depending on the target volume: PTV1 included the prostate gland, seminal vesicles, pelvic lymph nodes and a 1 cm margin, whereas PTV2 included only the prostate gland with a 1 cm margin. For each patient and each case of irradiation (PTV1 and PTV2) 8 treatment plans were created - all consisted of a different combination of planning parameters (FW = 1.05, 2.5, 5 cm; PF = 0.107, 0.215, 0.43; MF = 1.5, 2.5, 3.5). Default values used in this study were FW = 2.5 cm, PF = 0.215 and MF = 2.5. Hence, for plans with different FWs, parameters of PF and MF were 0.215 and 2.5, respectively; for different PFs, FW and MF were 2.5 and 2.5, respectively; finally for different MFs, FW and PF were 2.5 and 0.215, respectively. The reference plan was optimized for FW = 1.05 cm, PF = 0.107 and MF = 3.5, which was assumed to result in the best dose distribution and the longest treatment time. As a result, 160 plans were created. Each plan was analyzed for dose distribution and execution time.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

: Treatment plans with FW of 5 cm resulted in the shortest execution time compromising the dose distribution. Moreover, the dose fall off in the longitudinal direction was not sharp. FW of 1.05 cm and PF of 0.107 were not recommended for routine prostate plans due to long execution time, which was 3 times longer than for plans with FW = 5 cm. There was no substantial decrease of irradiation time when PF was increased from 0.215 to 0.43 for both cases (PTV1 and PTV2); however, the dose distribution was slightly compromised. Finally, decreasing MF from 2.5 to 1.5 was useless because it did not change the beam-on time; however, it did remarkably decrease the dose distribution. Nevertheless, increasing MF up to 3.5 could be considered. The lowest EUD for the rectum and intestines, could be observed for PF = 0.107. For the other plans the differences were rather small (the EUD was almost the same). By reducing PF from 0.43 to 0.107 or FW from 5 to 1.05 the EUD for bladder (in PTV1 case) decreased by 3.13% and 2.60%. When PTV2 was a target volume, the EUD for bladder decreased by 4.54% and 3.43% when FW was changed from 5 to 1.05 and MF from 1.5 to 3.5, respectively. For optimal balance between beam-on time and dose distribution in OARs for routine patients, the authors would suggest to use: FW = 2.5, PF = 0.215 and MF = 2.5.