Dosimetric considerations to determine the optimal technique for localized prostate cancer among external photon, proton, or carbon-ion therapy and high-dose-rate or low-dose-rate brachytherapy.

To assess the dosimetric differences among volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), scanned proton therapy (intensity-modulated proton therapy, IMPT), scanned carbon-ion therapy (intensity-modulated carbon-ion therapy, IMIT), and low-dose-rate (LDR) and high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT) treatment of localized prostate cancer. Ten patients were considered for this planning study. For external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), planning target volume was created by adding a margin of 5 mm (lateral/anterior-posterior) and 8 mm (superior-inferior) to the clinical target volume. Bladder wall (BW), rectal wall (RW), femoral heads, urethra, and pelvic tissue were considered as organs at risk. For VMAT and IMPT, 78 Gy(relative biological effectiveness, RBE)/2 Gy were prescribed. The IMIT was based on 66 Gy(RBE)/20 fractions. The clinical target volume planning aims for HDR-BT ((192)Ir) and LDR-BT ((125)I) were D(90%) ≥34 Gy in 8.5 Gy per fraction and D(90%) ≥145 Gy. Both physical and RBE-weighted dose distributions for protons and carbon-ions were converted to dose distributions based on 2-Gy(IsoE) fractions. From these dose distributions various dose and dose-volume parameters were extracted. Rectal wall exposure 30-70 Gy(IsoE) was reduced for IMIT, LDR-BT, and HDR-BT when compared with VMAT and IMPT. The high-dose region of the BW dose-volume histogram above 50 Gy(IsoE) of IMPT resembled the VMAT shape, whereas all other techniques showed a significantly lower high-dose region. For all 3 EBRT techniques similar urethra D(mean) around 74 Gy(IsoE) were obtained. The LDR-BT results were approximately 30 Gy(IsoE) higher, HDR-BT 10 Gy(IsoE) lower. Normal tissue and femoral head sparing was best with BT. Despite the different EBRT prescription and fractionation schemes, the high-dose regions of BW and RW expressed in Gy(IsoE) were on the same order of magnitude. Brachytherapy techniques were clearly superior in terms of BW, RW, and normal tissue sparing, with lowest values for HDR-BT.

Georg D ，Hopfgartner J ，Gòra J ，Kuess P ，Kragl G ，Berger D ，Hegazy N ，Goldner G ，Georg P ... -  《-》

Feasibility of dominant intraprostatic lesion boosting using advanced photon-, proton- or brachytherapy.

Advancements in imaging and dose delivery enable boosting of the dominant intraprostatic lesions (DIL), while maintaining organs-at-risk (OAR) tolerances. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of DIL boosting for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT). DILs were defined on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fused with planning CT for twelve patients. VMAT, IMPT and HDR-BT plans were created for each patient with an EQD2(α/β) DIL aimed at 111.6 Gy, PTV(initial) D(pres) was 80.9 Gy (EBRT) with CTV D90%=81.9 Gy (HDR-BT). Hard dose constraints were applied for OARs. Higher boost doses were achieved with IMPT compared to VMAT, keeping major OAR doses at similar levels. Patient averaged EQD2(α/β) D50% to DIL were 110.7, 114.2 and 150.1 Gy(IsoE) for VMAT, IMPT and HDR-BT, respectively. Respective rectal wall D(mean) were 30.5±5.0, 16.7±3.6, 9.5±2.5 Gy(IsoE) and bladder wall D(mean) were 21.0±5.5, 15.6±4.3 and 6.3±2.2 Gy(IsoE). DIL boosting was found to be feasible with all investigated techniques. Although OAR doses were higher than for standard treatment approach, the risk levels were reasonably low. HDR-BT was superior to VMAT and IMPT, both in terms of OAR sparing and DIL boosting.

Andrzejewski P ，Kuess P ，Knäusl B ，Pinker K ，Georg P ，Knoth J ，Berger D ，Kirisits C ，Goldner G ，Helbich T ，Pötter R ，Georg D ... -  《-》

Proton arc reduces range uncertainty effects and improves conformality compared with photon volumetric modulated arc therapy in stereotactic body radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer.

To describe, in a setting of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the theoretical dosimetric advantages of proton arc stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in which the beam penumbra of a rotating beam is used to reduce the impact of range uncertainties. Thirteen patients with early-stage NSCLC treated with proton SBRT underwent repeat planning with photon volumetric modulated arc therapy (Photon-VMAT) and an in-house-developed arc planning approach for both proton passive scattering (Passive-Arc) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT-Arc). An arc was mimicked with a series of beams placed at 10° increments. Tumor and organ at risk doses were compared in the context of high- and low-dose regions, represented by volumes receiving >50% and <50% of the prescription dose, respectively. In the high-dose region, conformality index values are 2.56, 1.91, 1.31, and 1.74, and homogeneity index values are 1.29, 1.22, 1.52, and 1.18, respectively, for 3 proton passive scattered beams, Passive-Arc, IMPT-Arc, and Photon-VMAT. Therefore, proton arc leads to a 30% reduction in the 95% isodose line volume to 3-beam proton plan, sparing surrounding organs, such as lung and chest wall. For chest wall, V30 is reduced from 21 cm(3) (3 proton beams) to 11.5 cm(3), 12.9 cm(3), and 8.63 cm(3) (P=.005) for Passive-Arc, IMPT-Arc, and Photon-VMAT, respectively. In the low-dose region, the mean lung dose and V20 of the ipsilateral lung are 5.01 Gy(relative biological effectiveness [RBE]), 4.38 Gy(RBE), 4.91 Gy(RBE), and 5.99 Gy(RBE) and 9.5%, 7.5%, 9.0%, and 10.0%, respectively, for 3-beam, Passive-Arc, IMPT-Arc, and Photon-VMAT, respectively. Stereotactic body radiation therapy with proton arc and Photon-VMAT generate significantly more conformal high-dose volumes than standard proton SBRT, without loss of coverage of the tumor and with significant sparing of nearby organs, such as chest wall. In addition, both proton arc approaches spare the healthy lung from low-dose radiation relative to photon VMAT. Our data suggest that IMPT-Arc should be developed for clinical use.

Seco J ，Gu G ，Marcelos T ，Kooy H ，Willers H ... -  《-》

Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy, high-dose rate brachytherapy, and low-dose rate permanent seeds implant for localized prostate cancer.

To investigate the dosimetric and radiobiological differences among volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy, and low-dose rate (LDR) permanent seeds implant for localized prostate cancer. A total of 10 patients with localized prostate cancer were selected for this study. VMAT, HDR brachytherapy, and LDR permanent seeds implant plans were created for each patient. For VMAT, planning target volume (PTV) was defined as the clinical target volume plus a margin of 5mm. Rectum, bladder, urethra, and femoral heads were considered as organs at risk. A 78Gy in 39 fractions were prescribed for PTV. For HDR and LDR plans, the dose prescription was D90 of 34Gy in 8.5Gy per fraction, and 145Gy to clinical target volume, respectively. The dose and dose volume parameters were evaluated for target, organs at risk, and normal tissue. Physical dose was converted to dose based on 2-Gy fractions (equivalent dose in 2Gy per fraction, EQD2) for comparison of 3 techniques. HDR and LDR significantly reduced the dose to rectum and bladder compared with VMAT. The Dmean (EQD2) of rectum decreased 22.36Gy in HDR and 17.01Gy in LDR from 30.24Gy in VMAT, respectively. The Dmean (EQD2) of bladder decreased 6.91Gy in HDR and 2.53Gy in LDR from 13.46Gy in VMAT. For the femoral heads and normal tissue, the mean doses were also significantly reduced in both HDR and LDR compared with VMAT. For the urethra, the mean dose (EQD2) was 80.26, 70.23, and 104.91Gy in VMAT, HDR, and LDR brachytherapy, respectively. For localized prostate cancer, both HDR and LDR brachytherapy were clearly superior in the sparing of rectum, bladder, femoral heads, and normal tissue compared with VMAT. HDR provided the advantage in sparing of urethra compared with VMAT and LDR.

Yang R ，Zhao N ，Liao A ，Wang H ，Qu A ... -  《-》

Intensity modulated proton beam radiation for brachytherapy in patients with cervical carcinoma.

To evaluate intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in patients with cervical cancer in terms of coverage, conformity, and dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters correlated with recommendations from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided brachytherapy. Eleven patients with histologically proven cervical cancer underwent primary chemoradiation for the pelvic lymph nodes, the uterus, the cervix, and the parametric region, with a symmetric margin of 1 cm. The prescription was for 50.4 Gy, with 1.8 Gy per fraction. The prescribed dose to the parametria was 2.12 Gy up to 59.36 Gy in 28 fractions as a simultaneous boost. For several reasons, the patients were unable to undergo brachytherapy. As an alternative, IMPT was planned with 5 fractions of 6 Gy to the cervix, including the macroscopic tumor with an MRI-guided target definition, with an isotropic margin of 5 mm for planning target volume (PTV) definition. Groupe-Europeen de Curietherapie and European society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) criteria were used for DVH evaluation. Reference comparison plans were optimized for volumetric modulated rapid arc (VMAT) therapy with the RapidArc (RA). The dose to the high-risk volume was calculated with α/β = 10 with 89.6 Gy. For IMPT, the clinical target volume showed a mean dose of 38.2 ± 5.0 Gy (35.0 ±1.8 Gy for RA). The D98% was 31.9 ± 2.6 Gy (RA: 30.8 ± 1.0 Gy). With regard to the organs at risk, the 2Gy Equivalent Dose (EQD2) (α/β = 3) to 2 cm(3) of the rectal wall, sigmoid wall, and bladder wall was 62.2 ± 6.4 Gy, 57.8 ± 6.1 Gy, and 80.6 ± 8.7 Gy (for RA: 75.3 ± 6.1 Gy, 66.9 ± 6.9 Gy, and 89.0 ± 7.2 Gy, respectively). For the IMPT boost plans in combination with external beam radiation therapy, all DVH parameters correlated with <5% risk for grades 2 to 4 late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity. In patients who are not eligible for brachytherapy, IMPT as a boost technique additionally to external beam radiation therapy provides good target coverage and conformity and superior DVH parameters, compared with recommendations to MRI-guided brachytherapy. For selected patients, IMPT might be a valid alternative to brachytherapy and also superior to reference VMAT plans.

Clivio A ，Kluge A ，Cozzi L ，Köhler C ，Neumann O ，Vanetti E ，Wlodarczyk W ，Marnitz S ... -  《-》