skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Dosimetric Study of Pelvic Proton Radiotherapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Abstract

Purpose: To compare dose distributions in targeted tissues (prostate, seminal vesicles, pelvic regional nodes) and nontargeted tissues in the pelvis with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and forward-planned, double-scattered, three-dimensional proton radiotherapy (3D-PRT). Methods and Materials: IMRT, IMRT followed by a prostate 3D-PRT boost (IMRT/3D-PRT), and 3D-PRT plans were created for 5 high-risk prostate cancer patients (n = 15 plans). A 78-CGE/Gy dose was prescribed to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles and a 46-CGE/Gy was prescribed to the pelvic nodes. Various dosimetric endpoints were compared. Results: Target coverage of the prostate and nodal planning target volumes was adequate for all three plans. Compared with the IMRT and IMRT/3D-PRT plans, the 3D-PRT plans reduced the mean dose to the rectum, rectal wall, bladder, bladder wall, small bowel, and pelvis. The relative benefit of 3D-PRT (vs IMRT) at reducing the rectum and rectal wall V5-V40 was 53% to 71% (p < 0.05). For the bladder and bladder wall, the relative benefit for V5 to V40 CGE/Gy was 40% to 63% (p < 0.05). The relative benefit for reducing the volume of small bowel irradiated from 5 to 30 CGE/Gy in the 3D-PRT ranged from 62% to 69% (p < 0.05). Use of 3D-PRTmore » did not produce the typical low-dose 'bath' of radiation to the pelvis seen with IMRT. Femoral head doses were higher for the 3D-PRT. Conclusions: Use of 3D-PRT significantly reduced the dose to normal tissues in the pelvis while maintaining adequate target coverage compared with IMRT or IMRT/3D-PRT. When treating the prostate, seminal vesicles, and pelvic lymph nodes in prostate cancer, proton therapy may improve the therapeutic ratio beyond what is possible with IMRT.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [1]; ; ; ; ;  [3];  [3]
  1. University of Florida Department of Radiation Oncology, Gainesville, FL (United States)
  2. Boca Radiation Oncology Associates, Boca Raton, FL (United States)
  3. University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute, Jacksonville, FL (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
21367491
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 75; Journal Issue: 4; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.01.044; PII: S0360-3016(09)00140-0; Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; BLADDER; LYMPH NODES; NEOPLASMS; PELVIS; PLANNING; PROSTATE; PROTONS; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIOTHERAPY; RECTUM; THREE-DIMENSIONAL CALCULATIONS; BARYONS; BODY; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM; DISEASES; ELEMENTARY PARTICLES; FERMIONS; GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT; GLANDS; HADRONS; INTESTINES; LARGE INTESTINE; LYMPHATIC SYSTEM; MALE GENITALS; MEDICINE; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; NUCLEONS; ORGANS; RADIOLOGY; THERAPY; URINARY TRACT

Citation Formats

Chera, Bhishamjit S., Vargas, Carlos, Morris, Christopher G., Louis, Debbie, Flampouri, Stella, Yeung, Daniel, Duvvuri, Srividya, Li Zuofeng, and Mendenhall, Nancy Price, E-mail: menden@shands.ufl.ed. Dosimetric Study of Pelvic Proton Radiotherapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer. United States: N. p., 2009. Web. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.01.044.
Chera, Bhishamjit S., Vargas, Carlos, Morris, Christopher G., Louis, Debbie, Flampouri, Stella, Yeung, Daniel, Duvvuri, Srividya, Li Zuofeng, & Mendenhall, Nancy Price, E-mail: menden@shands.ufl.ed. Dosimetric Study of Pelvic Proton Radiotherapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer. United States. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.01.044.
Chera, Bhishamjit S., Vargas, Carlos, Morris, Christopher G., Louis, Debbie, Flampouri, Stella, Yeung, Daniel, Duvvuri, Srividya, Li Zuofeng, and Mendenhall, Nancy Price, E-mail: menden@shands.ufl.ed. 2009. "Dosimetric Study of Pelvic Proton Radiotherapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer". United States. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.01.044.
@article{osti_21367491,
title = {Dosimetric Study of Pelvic Proton Radiotherapy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer},
author = {Chera, Bhishamjit S. and Vargas, Carlos and Morris, Christopher G. and Louis, Debbie and Flampouri, Stella and Yeung, Daniel and Duvvuri, Srividya and Li Zuofeng and Mendenhall, Nancy Price, E-mail: menden@shands.ufl.ed},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To compare dose distributions in targeted tissues (prostate, seminal vesicles, pelvic regional nodes) and nontargeted tissues in the pelvis with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and forward-planned, double-scattered, three-dimensional proton radiotherapy (3D-PRT). Methods and Materials: IMRT, IMRT followed by a prostate 3D-PRT boost (IMRT/3D-PRT), and 3D-PRT plans were created for 5 high-risk prostate cancer patients (n = 15 plans). A 78-CGE/Gy dose was prescribed to the prostate and proximal seminal vesicles and a 46-CGE/Gy was prescribed to the pelvic nodes. Various dosimetric endpoints were compared. Results: Target coverage of the prostate and nodal planning target volumes was adequate for all three plans. Compared with the IMRT and IMRT/3D-PRT plans, the 3D-PRT plans reduced the mean dose to the rectum, rectal wall, bladder, bladder wall, small bowel, and pelvis. The relative benefit of 3D-PRT (vs IMRT) at reducing the rectum and rectal wall V5-V40 was 53% to 71% (p < 0.05). For the bladder and bladder wall, the relative benefit for V5 to V40 CGE/Gy was 40% to 63% (p < 0.05). The relative benefit for reducing the volume of small bowel irradiated from 5 to 30 CGE/Gy in the 3D-PRT ranged from 62% to 69% (p < 0.05). Use of 3D-PRT did not produce the typical low-dose 'bath' of radiation to the pelvis seen with IMRT. Femoral head doses were higher for the 3D-PRT. Conclusions: Use of 3D-PRT significantly reduced the dose to normal tissues in the pelvis while maintaining adequate target coverage compared with IMRT or IMRT/3D-PRT. When treating the prostate, seminal vesicles, and pelvic lymph nodes in prostate cancer, proton therapy may improve the therapeutic ratio beyond what is possible with IMRT.},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.01.044},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 4,
volume = 75,
place = {United States},
year = 2009,
month =
}
  • Purpose: We report the long-term results of a prospective, Phase II study of long-term androgen deprivation (AD), pelvic radiotherapy (EBRT), permanent transperineal prostate brachytherapy boost (PB), and adjuvant docetaxel in patients with high-risk prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Eligibility included biopsy-proven prostate adenocarcinoma with the following: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > 20 ng/ml; or Gleason score of 7 and a PSA >10 ng/ml; or any Gleason score of 8 to 10; or stage T2b to T3 irrespective of Gleason score or PSA. Treatment consisted of 45 Gy of pelvic EBRT, followed 1 month later by PB with either iodine-125 or Pd-103.more » One month after PB, patients received three cycles of docetaxel chemotherapy (35 mg/m{sup 2} per week, Days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days). All patients received 2 years of AD. Biochemical failure was defined as per the Phoenix definition (PSA nadir + 2). Results: From August 2000 to March 2004, 42 patients were enrolled. The median overall and active follow-ups were 5.6 years (range, 0.9-7.8 years) and 6.3 years (range, 4-7.8 years), respectively. Grade 2 and 3 acute genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were 50.0% and 14.2%, respectively, with no Grade 4 toxicities noted. Grade 3 and 4 acute hematologic toxicities were 19% and 2.4%, respectively. Of the patients, 85.7% were able to complete the planned multimodality treatment. The 5- and 7-year actuarial freedom from biochemical failures rates were 89.6% and 86.5%, and corresponding rates for disease-free survival were 76.2% and 70.4%, respectively. The 5- and 7-year actuarial overall survival rates were 83.3% and 80.1%, respectively. The 5- and 7-year actuarial rates of late Grade 2 GI/GU toxicity (no Grade 3-5) was 7.7%. Conclusions: The trimodality approach of using 2 years of AD, external radiation, brachytherapy, and upfront docetaxel in high-risk prostate cancer is well tolerated, produces encouraging long-term results, and should be validated in a multi-institutional setting.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the toxicity of pelvic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) to the prostate for patients with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: A retrospective toxicity analysis was performed in 30 consecutive patients treated definitively with pelvic SIB-IMRT, all of whom also received androgen suppression. The IMRT plans were designed to deliver 70 Gy in 28 fractions (2.5 Gy/fraction) to the prostate while simultaneously delivering 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions (1.8 Gy/fraction) to the pelvic lymph nodes. The National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0, was used to scoremore » toxicity. Results: The most common acute Grade 2 events were cystitis (36.7%) and urinary frequency/urgency (26.7%). At a median follow-up of 24 months, late toxicity exceeding Grade 2 in severity was uncommon, with two Grade 3 events and one Grade 4 event. Grade 2 or greater acute bowel toxicity was associated with signficantly greater bowel volume receiving {>=}25 Gy (p = .04); Grade 2 or greater late bowel toxicity was associated with a higher bowel maximal dose (p = .04) and volume receiving {>=}50 Gy (p = .02). Acute or late bladder and rectal toxicity did not correlate with any of the dosimetric parameters examined. Conclusion: Pelvic IMRT with SIB to the prostate was well tolerated in this series, with low rates of Grade 3 or greater acute and late toxicity. SIB-IMRT combines pelvic radiotherapy and hypofractionation to the primary site and offers an accelerated approach to treating intermediate- to high-risk disease. Additional follow-up is necessary to fully define the long-term toxicity after hypofractionated, whole pelvic treatment combined with androgen suppression.« less
  • Purpose: 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). Methods and Materials: 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,more » 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.« less
  • Purpose: 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. Methods and Materials: 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 similaritymore » coefficient (DSC). Beam-on time, integral dose, and several organs at risk (OAR) dosimetric indexes were also compared. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the impact of adding image-guided (IG) technique to intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) on dosimetric avoidance of organs at risk (OAR) and acute toxicities. Methods and Materials: A total of 25 consecutively treated patients (10 from National University Hospital and 15 from University of California San Francisco) with high-risk prostate cancer formed the study cohort. All received definitive IMRT with prophylactic nodal RT. Similar IMRT contouring and planning techniques were used at both centers. At University of California, San Francisco, intraprostatic fiducial markers were used for daily pretreatment on-line corrections (IG-IMRT). In contrast, at the National University Hospital, nomore » fiducial markers were used (IMRT). At University of California, San Francisco, the planning target volume margins to the prostate were 2-3 mm. At the National University Hospital, they were 1 cm circumferentially, except for 0.5 cm posteriorly. The acute rectal and bladder toxicities and dosimetric endpoints to the planning target volume and organs at risk were compared. Results: The planning target volume dose coverage was not significantly different between IMRT and IG-IMRT for the prostate, seminal vesicles, and lymph nodes. The volume of rectum and bladder receiving {>=}40, {>=}60, and {>=}70 Gy were all significantly less using IG-IMRT (p <0.001). IG-IMRT yielded lower acute Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Grade 2 rectal (80% vs. 13%, p = 0.004) and bladder (60% vs. 13%, p = 0.014) toxicities. Conclusions: IG-IMRT, using daily target localization with fiducial markers, permits the use of smaller margins and correspondingly lower doses to the organs at risk, such as the rectum and bladder. These tangible gains appear to translate into lower clinically significant toxicities.« less