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 ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》

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》

Prostate stereotactic ablative radiation therapy using volumetric modulated arc therapy to dominant intraprostatic lesions.

To investigate boosting dominant intraprostatic lesions (DILs) in the context of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) and to examine the impact on tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). Ten prostate datasets were selected. DILs were defined using T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Four plans were produced for each dataset: (1) no boost to DILs; (2) boost to DILs, no seminal vesicles in prescription; (3) boost to DILs, proximal seminal vesicles (proxSV) prescribed intermediate dose; and (4) boost to DILs, proxSV prescribed higher dose. The prostate planning target volume (PTV) prescription was 42.7 Gy in 7 fractions. DILs were initially prescribed 115% of the PTV(Prostate) prescription, and PTV(DIL) prescriptions were increased in 5% increments until organ-at-risk constraints were reached. TCP and NTCP calculations used the LQ-Poisson Marsden, and Lyman-Kutcher-Burman models respectively. When treating the prostate alone, the median PTV(DIL) prescription was 125% (range: 110%-140%) of the PTV(Prostate) prescription. Median PTV(DIL) D50% was 55.1 Gy (range: 49.6-62.6 Gy). The same PTV(DIL) prescriptions and similar PTV(DIL) median doses were possible when including the proxSV within the prescription. TCP depended on prostate α/β ratio and was highest with an α/β ratio = 1.5 Gy, where the additional TCP benefit of DIL boosting was least. Rectal NTCP increased with DIL boosting and was considered unacceptably high in 5 cases, which, when replanned with an emphasis on reducing maximum dose to 0.5 cm(3) of rectum (Dmax(0.5cc)), as well as meeting existing constraints, resulted in considerable rectal NTCP reductions. Boosting DILs in the context of SABR is technically feasible but should be approached with caution. If this therapy is adopted, strict rectal constraints are required including Dmax(0.5cc). If the α/β ratio of prostate cancer is 1.5 Gy or less, then high TCP and low NTCP can be achieved by prescribing SABR to the whole prostate, without the need for DIL boosting.

Murray LJ ，Lilley J ，Thompson CM ，Cosgrove V ，Mason J ，Sykes J ，Franks K ，Sebag-Montefiore D ，Henry AM ... -  《-》

Helical tomotherapy and intensity modulated proton therapy in the treatment of dominant intraprostatic lesion: a treament planning comparison.

To compare helical tomotherapy (HT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for prostate cancer irradiation while concomitantly boosting dominant intraprostatic lesions (DILs). Treatment plans of seven patients were designed for HT and IMPT (pencil beam size: 3mm sigma). The prescribed median PTV/DIL doses were 71.4/100 Gy in 28 fractions, while satisfying "safe" dose constraints for organs at risks (OARs) including rectum, bladder, femoral heads, penile bulb and urethra. The planner could further reduce the dose to OARs if PTV/DIL constraints were reached. IMPT achieved better dose conformity (CI=1.11 vs 1.31, p<0.05) and coverage (V95%=97.3% vs 95.3%, p<0.05) in PTV. Concerning DIL volumes, both techniques delivered the prescribed dose (D median: HT=100 Gy, IMPT=102.1 Gy) with similar dose conformity (CI: HT=1.49, IMPT=1.44) and same dose homogeneity, D99%, D1%, while satisfying the OARs constraints. Excepting urethra, the sparing of OARs was significantly better with IMPT; in general, the lower the dose, the greater the benefit of IMPT. Normal tissue complication probabilities for the rectum were in favor of IMPT with an absolute reduction of 3-8%, depending on the NTCP model (p<0.05). Both techniques allowed delivering 100 Gy to DILs, while complying with the OARs constraints. IMPT was superior in sparing OARs for doses up to approximately 70 Gy, with larger benefit at lower doses.

Fellin F ，Azzeroni R ，Maggio A ，Lorentini S ，Cozzarini C ，Di Muzio N ，Fiorino C ，Calandrino R ，Schwarz M ... -  《-》