A dosimetric comparison of tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer with pelvic nodal radiation therapy.

To compare the dosimetric results of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer with pelvic nodal radiation therapy. Plans were generated for 10 consecutive patients treated for high-risk prostate cancer with prophylactic whole pelvic radiation therapy (WPRT) using VMAT and HT. After WPRT, a sequential boost was delivered to the prostate. Plan quality was assessed according to the criteria of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements 83 report: the near-minimal (D98%), near-maximal (D2%), and median (D50%) doses; the homogeneity index (HI); and the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). Beam-on time, integral dose, and several organs at risk (OAR) dosimetric indexes were also compared. For WPRT, HT was able to provide a higher D98% than VMAT (44.3 ± 0.3 Gy and 43.9 ± 0.5 Gy, respectively; P=.032) and a lower D2% than VMAT (47.3 ± 0.3 Gy and 49.1 ± 0.7 Gy, respectively; P=.005), leading to a better HI. The DSC was better for WPRT with HT (0.89 ± 0.009) than with VMAT (0.80 ± 0.02; P=.002). The dosimetric indexes for the prostate boost did not differ significantly. VMAT provided better rectum wall sparing at higher doses (V70, V75, D2%). Conversely, HT provided better bladder wall sparing (V50, V60, V70), except at lower doses (V20). The beam-on times for WPRT and prostate boost were shorter with VMAT than with HT (3.1 ± 0.1 vs 7.4 ± 0.6 min, respectively; P=.002, and 1.5 ± 0.05 vs 3.7 ± 0.3 min, respectively; P=.002). The integral dose was slightly lower for VMAT. VMAT and HT provided very similar and highly conformal plans that complied well with OAR dose-volume constraints. Although some dosimetric differences were statistically significant, they remained small. HT provided a more homogeneous dose distribution, whereas VMAT enabled a shorter delivery time.

Pasquier D ，Cavillon F ，Lacornerie T ，Touzeau C ，Tresch E ，Lartigau E ... -  《-》

Assessing the role of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) relative to IMRT and helical tomotherapy in the management of localized, locally advanced, and post-operative prostate cancer.

To quantify differences in treatment delivery efficiency and dosimetry between step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT) for prostate treatment. Twenty-five prostate cancer patients were selected retrospectively for this planning study. Treatment plans were generated for: prostate alone (n = 5), prostate + seminal vesicles (n = 5), prostate + seminal vesicles + pelvic lymph nodes (n = 5), prostate bed (n = 5), and prostate bed + pelvic lymph nodes (n = 5). Target coverage, dose homogeneity, integral dose, monitor units (MU), and sparing of organs at risk (OAR) were compared across techniques. Time required to deliver each plan was measured. The dosimetric quality of IMRT, VMAT, and HT plans were comparable for target coverage (planning target volume V95%, clinical target volume V100% all >98.7%) and sparing of organs at risk (OAR) for all treatment groups. Although HT resulted in a slightly higher integral dose and mean doses to the OAR, it yielded a lower maximum dose to all OAR examined. VMAT resulted in reductions in treatment times over IMRT (mean = 75%) and HT (mean = 70%). VMAT required 15-38% fewer monitor units than IMRT over all treatment volumes, with the reduction per fraction ranging from 100-423 MU from the smallest to largest volumes. VMAT improves efficiency of delivery for equivalent dosimetric quality as IMRT and HT across various prostate cancer treatment volumes in the intact and postoperative settings.

Davidson MT ，Blake SJ ，Batchelar DL ，Cheung P ，Mah K ... -  《-》

Helical tomotherapy vs. intensity-modulated proton therapy for whole pelvis irradiation in high-risk prostate cancer patients: dosimetric, normal tissue complication probability, and generalized equivalent uniform dose analysis.

To compare intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and helical tomotherapy (HT) treatment plans for high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) patients. The plans of 8 patients with HRPCa treated with HT were compared with IMPT plans with two quasilateral fields set up (-100°; 100°) and optimized with the Hyperion treatment planning system. Both techniques were optimized to simultaneously deliver 74.2 Gy/Gy relative biologic effectiveness (RBE) in 28 fractions on planning target volumes (PTVs)3-4 (P + proximal seminal vesicles), 65.5 Gy/Gy(RBE) on PTV2 (distal seminal vesicles and rectum/prostate overlapping), and 51.8 Gy/Gy(RBE) to PTV1 (pelvic lymph nodes). Normal tissue calculation probability (NTCP) calculations were performed for the rectum, and generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) was estimated for the bowel cavity, penile bulb and bladder. A slightly better PTV coverage and homogeneity of target dose distribution with IMPT was found: the percentage of PTV volume receiving ≥ 95% of the prescribed dose (V(95%)) was on average > 97% in HT and > 99% in IMPT. The conformity indexes were significantly lower for protons than for photons, and there was a statistically significant reduction of the IMPT dosimetric parameters, up to 50 Gy/Gy(RBE) for the rectum and bowel and 60 Gy/Gy(RBE) for the bladder. The NTCP values for the rectum were higher in HT for all the sets of parameters, but the gain was small and in only a few cases statistically significant. Comparable PTV coverage was observed. Based on NTCP calculation, IMPT is expected to allow a small reduction in rectal toxicity, and a significant dosimetric gain with IMPT, both in medium-dose and in low-dose range in all OARs, was observed.

Widesott L ，Pierelli A ，Fiorino C ，Lomax AJ ，Amichetti M ，Cozzarini C ，Soukup M ，Schneider R ，Hug E ，Di Muzio N ，Calandrino R ，Schwarz M ... -  《-》

Treatment planning comparison of IMPT, VMAT and 4π radiotherapy for prostate cases.

Tran A ，Zhang J ，Woods K ，Yu V ，Nguyen D ，Gustafson G ，Rosen L ，Sheng K ... -  《Radiation Oncology》

A treatment planning and acute toxicity comparison of two pelvic nodal volume delineation techniques and delivery comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus volumetric modulated arc therapy for hypofractionated high-risk prostate cancer radioth

To perform a comparison of two pelvic lymph node volume delineation strategies used in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for high risk prostate cancer and to determine the role of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Eighteen consecutive patients accrued to an ongoing clinical trial were identified according to either the nodal contouring strategy as described based on lymphotropic nanoparticle-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging technology (9 patients) or the current Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) consensus guidelines (9 patients). Radiation consisted of 45 Gy to prostate, seminal vesicles, and lymph nodes, with a simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate alone, to a total dose of 67.5 Gy delivered in 25 fractions. Prospective acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were compared at baseline, during radiotherapy, and 3 months after radiotherapy. Each patient was retrospectively replanned using the opposite method of nodal contouring, and plans were normalized for dosimetric comparison. VMAT plans were also generated according to the RTOG method for comparison. RTOG plans resulted in a significantly lower rate of genitourinary frequency 3 months after treatment. The dosimetric comparison showed that the RTOG plans resulted in both favorable planning target volume (PTV) coverage and lower organs at risk (OARs) and integral (ID) doses. VMAT required two to three arcs to achieve adequate treatment plans, we did not observe consistent dosimetric benefits to either the PTV or the OARs, and a higher ID was observed. However, treatment times were significantly shorter with VMAT. The RTOG guidelines for pelvic nodal volume delineation results in favorable dosimetry and acceptable acute toxicities for both the target and OARs. We are unable to conclude that VMAT provides a benefit compared with IMRT.

Myrehaug S ，Chan G ，Craig T ，Weinberg V ，Cheng C ，Roach M 3rd ，Cheung P ，Sahgal A ... -  《-》