A Prospective Comparison of the Effects of Interfractional Variations on Proton Therapy and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Journal Article · Sun May 01 04:00:00 EDT 2016 · International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJROBP.2015.12.366· OSTI ID:22648658

Moteabbed, Maryam; Trofimov, Alexei; Sharp, Gregory C.; Wang, Yi; Zietman, Anthony L.; Efstathiou, Jason A.; Lu, Hsiao-Ming

Purpose: To quantify and compare the impact of interfractional setup and anatomic variations on proton therapy (PT) and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. Methods and Materials: Twenty patients with low-risk or intermediate-risk prostate cancer randomized to receive passive-scattering PT (n=10) and IMRT (n=10) were selected. For both modalities, clinical treatment plans included 50.4 Gy(RBE) to prostate and proximal seminal vesicles, and prostate-only boost to 79.2 Gy(RBE) in 1.8 Gy(RBE) per fraction. Implanted fiducials were used for prostate localization and endorectal balloons were used for immobilization. Patients in PT and IMRT arms received weekly computed tomography (CT) and cone beam CT (CBCT) scans, respectively. The planned dose was recalculated on each weekly image, scaled, and mapped onto the planning CT using deformable registration. The resulting accumulated dose distribution over the entire treatment course was compared with the planned dose using dose-volume histogram (DVH) and γ analysis. Results: The target conformity index remained acceptable after accumulation. The largest decrease in the average prostate D{sub 98} was 2.2 and 0.7 Gy for PT and IMRT, respectively. On average, the mean dose to bladder increased by 3.26 ± 7.51 Gy and 1.97 ± 6.84 Gy for PT and IMRT, respectively. These values were 0.74 ± 2.37 and 0.56 ± 1.90 for rectum. Differences between changes in DVH indices were not statistically significant between modalities. All volume indices remained within the protocol tolerances after accumulation. The average pass rate for the γ analysis, assuming tolerances of 3 mm and 3%, for clinical target volume, bladder, rectum, and whole patient for PT/IMRT were 100/100, 92.6/99, 99.2/100, and 97.2/99.4, respectively. Conclusion: The differences in target coverage and organs at risk dose deviations for PT and IMRT were not statistically significant under the guidelines of this protocol.

• OSTI ID: 22648658
• Journal Information: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Journal Name: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics Journal Issue: 1 Vol. 95; ISSN IOBPD3; ISSN 0360-3016
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE
COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY
GY RANGE 01-10
GY RANGE 10-100
NEOPLASMS
PATIENTS
PLATINUM
PROSTATE
PROTON BEAMS
RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS
RADIATION HAZARDS
RADIOTHERAPY
RBE
VARIATIONS