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

Title: Radiotherapy Treatment Plans With RapidArc for Prostate Cancer Involving Seminal Vesicles and Lymph Nodes

Abstract

Purpose: Dosimetric results and treatment delivery efficiency of RapidArc plans to those of conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans were compared using the Eclipse treatment planning system for high-risk prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: This study included 10 patients. The primary planning target volume (PTV{sub P}) contained prostate, seminal vesicles, and pelvic lymph nodes with a margin. The boost PTV (PTV{sub B}) contained prostate and seminal vesicles with a margin. The total prescription dose was 75.6 Gy (46.8 Gy to PTV{sub P} and an additional 28.8 Gy to PTV{sub B}; 1.8 Gy/fraction). Three plans were generated for each PTV: Multiple-field IMRT, one-arc RapidArc (1ARC), and two-arc RapidArc (2ARC). Results: In the primary IMRT with PTV{sub P}, average mean doses to bladder, rectum and small bowel were lower by 5.9%, 7.7% and 4.3%, respectively, than in the primary 1ARC and by 3.6%, 4.8% and 3.1%, respectively, than in the primary 2ARC. In the boost IMRT with PTV{sub B}, average mean doses to bladder and rectum were lower by 2.6% and 4.8% than with the boost 1ARC and were higher by 0.6% and 0.2% than with the boost 2ARC. Integral doses were 7% to 9% higher with RapidArc than with IMRT for bothmore » primary and boost plans. Treatment delivery time was reduced by 2-7 minutes using RapidArc. Conclusion: For PTVs including prostate, seminal vesicles, and lymph nodes, IMRT performed better in dose sparing for bladder, rectum, and small bowel than did RapidArc. For PTVs including prostate and seminal vesicles, RapidArc with two arcs provided plans comparable to those for IMRT. The treatment delivery is more efficient with RapidArc.« less

Authors:
 [1]; ; ;  [1]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
21372121
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics; Journal Volume: 76; Journal Issue: 3; Other Information: DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1677; PII: S0360-3016(09)02718-7; Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; BLADDER; DELIVERY; INTEGRAL DOSES; LYMPH NODES; NEOPLASMS; PLANNING; PROSTATE; RADIOTHERAPY; RECTUM; BODY; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM; DISEASES; DOSES; GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT; GLANDS; INTESTINES; LARGE INTESTINE; LYMPHATIC SYSTEM; MALE GENITALS; MEDICINE; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; ORGANS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOLOGY; THERAPY; URINARY TRACT

Citation Formats

Yoo, Sua, E-mail: sua.yoo@duke.ed, Wu, Q. Jackie, Lee, W. Robert, and Yin Fangfang. Radiotherapy Treatment Plans With RapidArc for Prostate Cancer Involving Seminal Vesicles and Lymph Nodes. United States: N. p., 2010. Web. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1677.
Yoo, Sua, E-mail: sua.yoo@duke.ed, Wu, Q. Jackie, Lee, W. Robert, & Yin Fangfang. Radiotherapy Treatment Plans With RapidArc for Prostate Cancer Involving Seminal Vesicles and Lymph Nodes. United States. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1677.
Yoo, Sua, E-mail: sua.yoo@duke.ed, Wu, Q. Jackie, Lee, W. Robert, and Yin Fangfang. 2010. "Radiotherapy Treatment Plans With RapidArc for Prostate Cancer Involving Seminal Vesicles and Lymph Nodes". United States. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1677.
@article{osti_21372121,
title = {Radiotherapy Treatment Plans With RapidArc for Prostate Cancer Involving Seminal Vesicles and Lymph Nodes},
author = {Yoo, Sua, E-mail: sua.yoo@duke.ed and Wu, Q. Jackie and Lee, W. Robert and Yin Fangfang},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Dosimetric results and treatment delivery efficiency of RapidArc plans to those of conventional intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans were compared using the Eclipse treatment planning system for high-risk prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: This study included 10 patients. The primary planning target volume (PTV{sub P}) contained prostate, seminal vesicles, and pelvic lymph nodes with a margin. The boost PTV (PTV{sub B}) contained prostate and seminal vesicles with a margin. The total prescription dose was 75.6 Gy (46.8 Gy to PTV{sub P} and an additional 28.8 Gy to PTV{sub B}; 1.8 Gy/fraction). Three plans were generated for each PTV: Multiple-field IMRT, one-arc RapidArc (1ARC), and two-arc RapidArc (2ARC). Results: In the primary IMRT with PTV{sub P}, average mean doses to bladder, rectum and small bowel were lower by 5.9%, 7.7% and 4.3%, respectively, than in the primary 1ARC and by 3.6%, 4.8% and 3.1%, respectively, than in the primary 2ARC. In the boost IMRT with PTV{sub B}, average mean doses to bladder and rectum were lower by 2.6% and 4.8% than with the boost 1ARC and were higher by 0.6% and 0.2% than with the boost 2ARC. Integral doses were 7% to 9% higher with RapidArc than with IMRT for both primary and boost plans. Treatment delivery time was reduced by 2-7 minutes using RapidArc. Conclusion: For PTVs including prostate, seminal vesicles, and lymph nodes, IMRT performed better in dose sparing for bladder, rectum, and small bowel than did RapidArc. For PTVs including prostate and seminal vesicles, RapidArc with two arcs provided plans comparable to those for IMRT. The treatment delivery is more efficient with RapidArc.},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1677},
journal = {International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics},
number = 3,
volume = 76,
place = {United States},
year = 2010,
month = 3
}
  • Purpose: To compare biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), cause-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) rates among high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with brachytherapy and supplemental external beam radiation (EBRT) using either a mini-pelvis (MP) or a whole-pelvis (WP) field. Methods and Materials: From May 1995 to October 2005, 186 high-risk prostate cancer patients were treated with brachytherapy and EBRT with or without androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). High-risk prostate cancer was defined as a Gleason score of >=8 and/or a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration of >=20 ng/ml. Results: With a median follow-up of 6.7 years, the 10-year bPFS, CSS, and OS ratesmore » for the WP vs. the MP arms were 91.7% vs. 84.4% (p = 0.126), 95.5% vs. 92.6% (p = 0.515), and 79.5% vs. 67.1% (p = 0.721), respectively. Among those patients who received ADT, the 10-year bPFS, CSS, and OS rates for the WP vs. the MP arms were 93.6% vs. 90.1% (p = 0.413), 94.2% vs. 96.0% (p = 0.927), and 73.7% vs. 70.2% (p = 0.030), respectively. Among those patients who did not receive ADT, the 10-year bPFS, CSS, and OS rates for the WP vs. the MP arms were 82.4% vs. 75.0% (p = 0.639), 100% vs. 88% (p = 0.198), and 87.5% vs. 58.8% (p = 0.030), respectively. Based on multivariate analysis, none of the evaluated parameters predicted for CSS, while bPFS was best predicted by ADT and percent positive biopsy results. OS was best predicted by age and percent positive biopsy results. Conclusions: For high-risk prostate cancer patients receiving brachytherapy, there is a nonsignificant trend toward improved bPFS, CSS, and OS rates when brachytherapy is given with WPRT. This trend is most apparent among ADT-naive patients, for whom a significant improvement in OS was observed.« less
  • Purpose: To compare dose-volume consequences of the inclusion of various portions of the seminal vesicles (SVs) in the clinical target volume (CTV) in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for patients with prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: For 10 patients with prostate cancer, three matched IMRT plans were generated, including 1 cm, 2 cm, or the entire SVs (SV1, SV2, or SVtotal, respectively) in the CTV. Prescription dose (79.2 Gy) and IMRT planning were according to the high-dose arm of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0126 protocol. We compared plans for percentage of rectal volume receiving minimum doses of 60-80 Gy andmore » for rectal normal tissue complication probability (NTCP[R]). Results: There was a detectable increase in rectal dose in SV2 and SVtotal compared with SV1. The magnitude of difference between plans was modest in the high-dose range. In 2 patients, there was underdosing of the planning target volume (PTV) because of constraints on rectal dose in the SVtotal plans. All other plans were compliant with RTOG 0126 protocol requirements. Mean NTCP(R) increased from 14% to 17% and 18% for SV1, SV2, and SV total, respectively. The NTCP(R) correlated with the size of PTV-rectum volume overlap (Pearson's r = 0.86; p < 0.0001), but not with SV volume. Conclusions: Doubling (1 to 2 cm) or comprehensively increasing (1 cm to full SVs) SV volume included in the CTV for patients with prostate IMRT is achievable in the majority of cases without exceeding RTOG dose-volume limits or underdosing the PTV and results in only a moderate increase in NTCP(R)« less
  • Purpose: To study the impact on nodal coverage and dose to fixed organs at risk when using daily fiducial localization of the prostate to deliver intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Methods and Materials: Five patients with prostate cancer in whom prostate and pelvic nodes were irradiated with IMRT were studied. Dose was prescribed such that 95% of the prostate planning target volume (PTV) and 90% of the nodal PTV were covered. Random and systematic prostate displacements in the anterior-posterior, superior-inferior, and left-right directions were simulated to shift the original isocenter of the IMRT plan. The composite dose during the course of treatmentmore » was calculated. Results: Compared with a static setup, simulating random shifts reduced dose by less than 1.5% for nodal hotspot (i.e., dose to 1 cm{sup 3}), by less than 1% for the 90% nodal PTV coverage, and by less than 0.5% for the nodal mean dose. Bowel and femoral head hotspots were reduced by less than 1.5% and 2%, respectively. A 10-mm systematic offset reduced nodal coverage by up to 10%. Conclusion: The use of prostate fiducials for daily localization during IMRT treatment results in negligible changes in dose coverage of pelvic nodes or normal tissue sparing in the absence of a significant systematic offset. This offers a simple and practical solution to the problem of image-guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer when including pelvic nodes.« less
  • Purpose: We present planning and early clinical outcomes of a study of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for locally advanced prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: A total of 43 patients initially treated with an IMRT plan delivering 50 Gy to the prostate, seminal vesicles, and pelvic lymph nodes, followed by a conformal radiotherapy (CRT) plan delivering 20 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles, were studied. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) data for the added plans were compared with dose-volume histogram data for the sum of two CRT plans for 15 cases. Gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity, based on the Radiation Therapy Oncologymore » Group scoring system, was recorded weekly throughout treatment as well as 3 to 18 months after treatment and are presented. Results: Treatment with IMRT both reduced normal tissue doses and increased the minimum target doses. Intestine volumes receiving more than 40 and 50 Gy were significantly reduced (e.g., at 50 Gy, from 81 to 19 cm{sup 3}; p = 0.026), as were bladder volumes above 40, 50, and 60 Gy, rectum volumes above 30, 50, and 60 Gy, and hip joint muscle volumes above 20, 30, and 40 Gy. During treatment, Grade 2 GI toxicity was reported by 12 of 43 patients (28%), and Grade 2 to 4 GU toxicity was also observed among 12 patients (28%). With 6 to 18 months of follow-up, 2 patients (5%) experienced Grade 2 GI effects and 7 patients (16%) experienced Grade 2 GU effects. Conclusions: Use of IMRT for pelvic irradiation in prostate cancer reduces normal tissue doses, improves target coverage, and has a promising toxicity profile.« less
  • Purpose: To assess whether a 4-field box technique (4FBT), along with its technical refinements, is an adequate approach in terms of rectal sparing and target coverage for patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing whole-pelvic radiotherapy followed by a prostate boost and whether or not intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is needed. Methods and Materials: For 8 patients, 31 plans were generated, each of them differing in one or more features, including prescription (dose/volume) and/or technical factors. For the latter, several 'solutions' to try to reduce the amount of irradiated rectal volume were addressed, including modifications of the 4FBT and the use ofmore » sequential IMRT. We constructed a database with 248 plans that were tested for their ability to meet a series of rectal dose-volume constraints at V50, V60, V65, V70, V75, and V75.6. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with the end point. Successful solutions were also compared in terms of coverage of both pelvic node and prostate planning target volume (PTV) by isodose 95%. Results: At multivariate logistic regression, both rectal blocking and IMRT were independent predictors of the probability of meeting rectal dose-volume constraints during the pelvic and boost phases of treatment with close relative risks. However, on average, partial rectal blocking on lateral fields of 4FBT during whole-pelvic radiotherapy resulted in about 3% of pelvic node PTV being outside isodose 95%; only 2 of 8 patients had the pelvic nodal PTV covered similarly to what was achieved by whole-pelvis IMRT. Conversely, blocking the rectum during the last 3 fractions of the conformal boost showed a dosimetric coverage of prostate PTV similar to that achieved by IMRT boost. Interestingly, patient anatomic configuration was the strongest predictor of rectal sparing. Finally, the size of prostate margins to generate PTV was also independently associated with the probability of meeting rectal dose-volume constraints. Conclusion: In the dose range of 70-76 Gy to the prostate, IMRT and standard techniques are equally effective in meeting rectal dose-volume constraints. However, whole-pelvis IMRT might be preferable to standard techniques for its slightly superior PTV coverage.« less