直肠癌IMRT中不同体位对靶区剂量覆盖影响

目的 探讨直肠癌IMRT中仰卧位和俯卧位对靶区剂量覆盖的影响,为直肠癌IMRT体位的选择提供参考。方法 选取24例接受术后辅助放疗的直肠癌患者,仰卧位和俯卧位各12例。所有患者在治疗前和治疗过程中(第1—4周)各扫描一组定位CT,分别定义为Plan、1W、2W、3W、4W。基于不同CT影像图像分别勾画OAR。PlanCT与第1—4周CT分别进行图像融合,将PlanCT的CTV和PTV分别拷贝至第1—4周CT上,将基于PlanCT的治疗计划分别拷贝至第1—4周CT,评估靶区处方剂量覆盖率并计算靶区剂量覆盖不合格率,同时在医科达MOSAIQ网络中读取每例患者每次治疗时加速器治疗床位置数据并计算床位总体偏差值。成对t检验比较2组数据差异,Pearson检验进行相关性分析。结果 在治疗过程中俯卧位患者的CTV、PTV靶区剂量覆盖不合格率高于仰卧位(19%：0%,70%：54%),总体偏差值与靶区剂量覆盖率存在显著相关性(r=-0.683,P=0.000)。俯卧位患者的总体偏差值为(1.23±0.76) cm明显大于仰卧位患者的(0.28±0.18) cm (P=0.001),其中y、z轴向偏差最为明显(P=0.003、0.003)。俯卧位患者小肠V5、V10明显小于仰卧位患者(P=0.003、0.004),其慢性不良反应也明显较少(P=0.041)。结论 直肠癌IMRT患者选择仰卧位能保持较好的靶区剂量覆盖率,而俯卧位因使用腹板装置会导致体位重复性变差,进而影响靶区剂量覆盖。尽管俯卧位联合腹板可以减少小肠耐受剂量,但应采取有效的保证患者体位重复性的措施。     

Comparison of three-dimensional versus intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques to treat breast and axillary level III and supraclavicular nodes in a prone versus supine position

Background and purpose

To determine the optimal method of targeting breast and regional nodes in selected breast cancer patients after axillary dissection, we compared the results of IMRT versus no IMRT, and CT-informed versus clinically-placed fields, in supine and prone positions.

Materials and methods

Twelve consecutive breast cancer patients simulated both prone and supine provided the images for this study. Four techniques were used to target breast, level III axilla, and supraclavicular fossa in either position: a traditional three-field three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) plan, a four-field 3DCRT plan using a posterior axillary boost field, and two techniques using a CT-informed target volume consisting of an optimized 3DCRT plan (CT-planned 3D) and an intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plan. The prescribed dose was 50 Gy in 25 fractions.

Results

CT-planned 3D and IMRT techniques improved nodal PTV coverage. Supine, mean nodal PTV V50 was 50% (3-field), 59% (4-field), 92% (CT-planned 3D), and 94% (IMRT). Prone, V50 was 29% (3-field), 42% (4-field), 97% (CT-planned 3D), and 95% (IMRT). Prone positioning, compared to supine, and IMRT technique, compared to 3D, lowered ipsilateral lung V20.

Conclusions

Traditional 3DCRT plans provide inadequate nodal coverage. Prone IMRT technique resulted in optimal target coverage and reduced ipsilateral lung V20.     

日本京都大学前列腺癌三个外放疗计划比较

[目的]比较分析日本京都大学医院对局限性前列腺癌实施治疗的三个外放疗计划。[方法]从放疗计划数据库中调取5例局限性前列腺癌的定位CT影像资料，分别按先前的三维适形计划（old 3DCRT）、新的3DCRT（new 3DCRT）和调强放疗计划（IMRT）做计划，根据剂量体积直方图比较各计划剂量分布的差异。[结果]临床靶区（CTV，即前列腺）的剂量覆盖在三个计划中都基本相似并达到理想的剂量分布，但对于计划靶区（PTV），V95、D95和适形指数值在IMRT分别为99％、97％和0．88；在new 3DCRT为93．9％、94．5％和0．76；在old 3DCRT为59．6％、82．9％和0．6。在IMRT计划中PTV的剂量不均整值较new 3DCRT计划中的高；直肠壁接受大于40Gy剂量的体积百分数在IMRT和new 3DCRT中差异不大，在old 3DCRT中最低。[结论]局限性前列腺癌动态弧三维适形放疗计划可以实现和调强放疗计划相比拟的靶区覆盖及对直肠壁的保护，尽管调强放疗计划可以达到更适形的靶区剂量分布，但代价是更高的剂量不均整。先前的三维适形计划达不到目前对PTV靶区的充分覆盖。     

Dosimetric comparison of four target alignment methods for prostate cancer radiotherapy

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the dosimetric consequences of 4 treatment delivery techniques for prostate cancer patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: During an 8-week course of radiotherapy, 10 patients underwent computed tomography (CT) scans 3 times per week (243 total) before daily treatment with a CT-linear accelerator. Treatment delivery was simulated by realigning a fixed-margin treatment plan on each CT scan and calculating doses. The alignment methods were those based on the following: skin marks, bony registration, ultrasonography (US), and in-room CT. For the last two methods, prostate was the alignment target. The dosimetric effects of these alignment methods on the prostate, seminal vesicles, rectum, and bladder were compared. The average daily minimum dose to 0.1 cm3 was used as the metric for target coverage. RESULTS: Skin and bone alignments provided acceptable prostate coverage for only 70% of patients, US alignment for 90%, and CT alignment for 100%. CT-based alignment of the prostate provided seminal vesicle (SV) coverage of > or = 69 Gy for all patients; US and bone alignments provided SV coverage of > or = 60 Gy. This SV coverage may be acceptable for early-stage cancer (equivalent SV dose = 55.8 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction), but unacceptable for late-stage cancer (SV dose = 75.6 Gy). At 75.6 Gy, the acceptable rate for SV coverage was 40% for skin and bone alignments, 70% for US, and 80% for CT. CONCLUSIONS: Direct target alignment methods (US and CT) provided better target coverage. CT-guided alignment provided the best and most consistent dosimetric coverage. A larger planning target volume margin is needed for SV coverage when the alignment target is the prostate.     

Target position variability throughout prostate radiotherapy

Purpose: To quantify the variability in prostate and seminal vesicle position during a course of external beam radiotherapy, and to measure the proportion of target variability due to setup error.

Methods and Materials: Forty-four weekly planning computerized tomography (CT) studies were obtained on six patients undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer. All patients were scanned in the radiotherapy treatment position, supine with an empty bladder, with no immobilization device. All organs were outlined on 3-mm-thick axial CT images. Anterior and lateral beam’s eye view digitally reconstructed radiographs and multiplanar reformatted images were generated. The position of the prostate and seminal vesicles relative to the isocenter location as set that day was recorded for each CT study. Target position relative to a bony landmark was measured to determine the relative contribution of setup error to the target position variability.

Results: The seminal vesicle and prostate position variability was most significant in the anterior–posterior (AP) direction, followed by cranial–caudal (CC) and mediolateral (ML) directions. Setup error contributed significantly to the total target position variability. Rectal filling was associated with a trend to anterior movement of the prostate, whereas bladder filling was not associated with any trends. Although most deviations from the target position determined at the initial planning CT scan were within 10 mm, deviations as large as 15 mm and 19 mm were seen in the prostate and seminal vesicles respectively. Target position variations were evenly distributed around the initial target position for some patient studies, but unpredictable patterns were also seen. From a simulation based on the observed variability in target position, the AP, CC, and ML planning target volume (PTV) borders around the clinical target volume (CTV) required for target coverage with 95% certainty are 12.4 mm, 10.3 mm, and 5.6 mm respectively for the prostate and 13.8 mm, 8.6 mm, and 3.9 mm respectively for the seminal vesicles.

Conclusion: Target position variability is significant during prostate radiotherapy, requiring large PTV borders around the CTV. This target position variability may be potentially reduced by improving the setup accuracy.     

霍奇金淋巴瘤斗篷野常规放疗与调强放疗计划剂量学研究

目的 对Ⅰ、Ⅱ期霍奇金淋巴瘤斗篷野常规放疗和4种不同设野IMRT计划剂量学进行比较,评估不同照射方法的优缺点.方法 选择10例病理证实的Ⅰ、Ⅱ期淋巴瘤患者行CT定位,用ECLIPS治疗计划系统对每例患者分别作出常规和4种不同布野的IMRT计划,分析各治疗计划PTV的CI、HI、D95、V95、Dmax、Dmean、Dmin,肺V5、V10、V20、V30,脊髓最大受量Dmax.结果 IMRT在PTV靶区剂量、适形性和均匀性方面均优于常规计划.4种IMRT计划之间PTV靶区覆盖、靶区剂量、适形性和均匀性方面相近;肺V30均低于常规放疗,但肺低剂量受照体积较常规放疗高,IMRT子野数越多可能使肺V20、V30越小而V5、V10越大;脊髓Dmax均低于常规放疗计划.结论 IMRT在靶区适形度、均匀性和靶区剂量、保护脊髓、降低肺高剂量受照体积方面均优于常规放疗,但肺低剂量照射体积大于常规放疗,而斗篷野IMRT可考虑选用7个野IMRT计划.     

A randomized trial of supine vs. prone positioning in patients undergoing escalated dose conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The optimal treatment position for patients receiving radical radiation therapy for prostate cancer has been a source of controversy. To resolve this issue, we conducted a randomized trial to evaluate the effects of supine and prone positioning on organ motion, positioning errors, and dose to critical organs during escalated dose conformal irradiation for localized prostate cancer and patient and therapist satisfaction with setup technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty eight patients were randomized to commence treatment immobilized in the supine or prone position and were subsequently changed to the alternate positioning for the latter half of their treatment. Patients underwent CT simulation and conformal radiotherapy planning and treatment in both positions. The clinical target volume encompassed the prostate gland. Alternate day lateral port films were compared to corresponding simulator radiographs to measure the isocentre positioning errors (IPE). Prostate motion (PM) and total positioning error (TPE) were measured from the same films by the displacements of three implanted fiducial markers. Dose volume histograms (DVHs) for the two treatment positions were compared at the 95, 80 and 50% dose (D%) levels. The patients and radiation therapists completed weekly questionnaires regarding patient comfort and ease of setup. RESULTS: Seven patients, who started in the supine position, subsequently refused prone position and received their whole treatment supine. Small bowel in the treatment volume, not present in the supine position, prevented one patient from being treated prone. PM in anterior posterior direction was statistically significantly less in the supine position (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in superior inferior PM for the two treatment positions. No statistically significant difference between supine and prone positioning was observed in isocentre positioning error (IPE) or total positioning error (TPE) due to a policy of daily pre-treatment correction. However, more pre-treatment corrections were required for patients in the prone position. The DVH analysis demonstrated larger volumes of the bladder wall, rectal wall and small bowel within the D95, D80 and D50% when comparing the planning target volumes (PTVs) actually treated for prone positioning. When the prone PTV was expanded to account for the greater PM encountered in that position, a statistically significant difference (P<0.007) was observed in favour of the supine position at all dose levels. In the prone position, four patients had small bowel within the 60 Gray (Gy) isodose and in the supine position, no patients had small bowel in the 60 or 38Gy volumes. Supine position was significantly more comfortable for the patients and setup was significantly easier for the radiation therapists. The median patient comfort score was 0.79 (Standard deviation (SD) 0.03) supine and 0.45 (SD 0.05) prone (P<0.001) The therapist convenience of setup was 0.80 (SD 0.016) supine and 0.54 (SD 0.025) prone (P<0.005). No statistically significant difference was seen for the other parameters studied. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated significantly less PM in the supine treatment position. There was no difference for either treatment position in IPE or TPE, however, more pre-treatment corrections were required in the prone position. Prone position required a larger PTV with resulting increased dose to critical organs. There were statistically significant improvements at all dose levels for small bowel, rectal wall and bladder wall doses in the supine position once corrections were made for differences in organ motion. Linear analogue scores of patient comfort and radiation therapist convenience demonstrated statistically significant improvement in favour of the supine position. Supine positioning has been adopted as the standard for conformal prostatic irradiation at our centre.     

Pilot study of feasibility and dosimetric comparison of prone versus supine breast radiotherapy

Purpose

The aim of this study was to demonstrate feasibility and analyze dosimetric differences in prone and supine position breast cancer radiotherapy in women with large or pendulous breast.

Methods

Ten post-lumpectomy breast cancer patients underwent supine and prone computed tomography-based treatment plan. On each data set, the whole breast, the ipsilateral lung and the heart were outlined. Multisegment tangential-fields plans were generated for each position. Target coverage, homogeneity, overdosage outside breast and organ at risk sparing were analyzed and compared for supine and prone position.

Results

Coverage and dose homogeneity of the PTV measured by D ₉₀ and V _95 % were similar for both plans although breast maximum dose was higher in the supine plan (p = 0.017). Prone position reduced the percentage of ipsilateral lung receiving 20 Gy (V _20Gy) from 26.5 to 2.9 % (p = 0.007), medium lung dose, as well as the percentage of the heart receiving 35 Gy heart (V _35Gy) from 3.4 to 1.2 % (p = 0.038). Overdosage of areas outside breast PTV was also consistently reduced with prone position (p = 0.012). In addition, average number of segments and monitor units needed was reduced in prone position.

Conclusions

Prone position in large breast women appears to favor normal tissue sparing in breast radiotherapy as compared to supine position, without diminishing the target coverage.     

Internal organ motion in prostate cancer patients treated in prone and supine treatment position.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare supine and prone treatment positions for prostate cancer patients with respect to internal prostate motion and the required treatment planning margins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients were treated in supine and fifteen in prone position. For each patient, a planning computed tomography (CT) scan was used for treatment planning. Three repeat CT scans were made in weeks 2, 4, and 6 of the radiotherapy treatment. Only for the planning CT scan, laxation was used to minimise the rectal content. For all patients, the clinical target volume (CTV) consisted of prostate and seminal vesicles. Variations in the position of the CTV relative to the bony anatomy in the four CT scans of each patient were assessed using 3D chamfer matching. The overall variations were separated into variations in the mean CTV position per patient (i.e. the systematic component) and the average 'day-to-day' variation (i.e. the random component). Required planning margins to account for the systematic and random variations in internal organ position and patient set-up were estimated retrospectively using coverage probability matrices. RESULTS: The observed overall variation in the internal CTV position was larger for the patients treated in supine position. For the supine and prone treatment positions, the random components of the variation along the anterior-posterior axis (i.e. towards the rectum) were 2.4 and 1.5 mm (I standard deviation (1 SD)), respectively; the random rotations around the left-right axis were 3.0 and 2.9 degrees (1 SD). The systematic components of these motions (1 SD) were larger: 2.6 and 3.3 mm, and 3.7 and 5.6 degrees, respectively. The set-up variations were similar for both treatment positions. Despite the smaller overall variations in CTV position for the patients in prone position, the required planning margin is equal for both groups (about 1 cm except for 0.5 cm in lateral direction) due to the larger impact of the systematic variations. However, significant time trends cause a systematic ventral-superior shift of the CTV in supine position only. CONCLUSIONS: For internal prostate movement, it is important to distinguish systematic from random variations. Compared to patients in supine position, patients in prone position had smaller random but somewhat larger systematic variations in the most important coordinates of the internal CTV position. The estimated planning margins to account for the geometrical uncertainties were therefore similar for the two treatment positions.     

Direct aperture optimization-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy for whole breast irradiation

PURPOSE: To investigate the technical and dosimetric advantages and the efficacy of direct aperture optimized intensity-modulated radiation therapy (DAO-IMRT) over standard (e.g., beamlet optimized) IMRT and conventional three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) for whole breast irradiation in supine and prone positions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively designed DAO-IMRT plans for 15 breast cancer patients in supine (10 patients) and prone (5 patients) positions with a goal of uniform dose coverage of the whole breast. These DAO-IMRT plans were compared with standard IMRT using beamlet optimization and conventional 3D-CRT plans using wedges. All plans used opposed tangential beam arrangements. RESULTS: In all cases, the DAO-IMRT plans were equal to or better than those generated with 3D-CRT and standard beamlet-IMRT. For supine cases, DAO-IMRT provided higher uniformity index (UI, defined as the ratio of the dose to 95% of breast volume to the maximum dose) than either 3D-CRT (0.88 vs. 0.82; p = 0.026) or beamlet-IMRT (0.89 vs. 0.85; p = 0.003). Direct aperture optimized IMRT also gave lower lung doses than either 3D-CRT (V20 = 7.9% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.024) or beamlet-IMRT (V20 = 8.4% vs. 9.7%; p = 0.0008) for supine patients. For prone patients, DAO-IMRT provided higher UI than either 3D-CRT (0.89 vs. 0.83; p = 0.027) or beamlet-IMRT (0.89 vs. 0.85; p = 0.003). The planning time for DAO-IMRT was approximately 75% less than that of 3D-CRT. The monitor units for DAO-IMRT were approximately 60% less than those of beamlet-IMRT. CONCLUSION: Direct aperture optimized IMRT improved the overall quality of dose distributions as well as the planning and delivery efficiency for treating whole breast in both supine and prone positions.     

子宫颈癌调强放射治疗中不同体位的剂量学研究

 目的　比较分析子宫颈癌调强放射治疗（IMRT）中不同治疗体位对相邻正常器官受照剂量分布和受照体积的影响。方法　11例子宫颈鳞癌ⅡB～ⅢB患者在CT模拟定位机下分别行俯卧位和仰卧位定位扫描,将定位资料传输至治疗计划系统（TPS）,勾画两种不同体位下的临床靶区（CTV）和计划靶区（PTV）,并分别设计两种不同体位IMRT计划。处方剂量：95 %的PTV接受46 Gy（2 Gy／次,23次）,通过剂量体积直方图（DVH）分析比较两种治疗体位下,小肠等器官的不同受照剂量和体积的差别。结果　在符合PTV剂量要求的前提下,采用俯卧位体位小肠的受照体积在46～30 Gy剂量范围内比仰卧位体位时的受照体积明显减小（P＜0.05）,在低剂量范围内（＜20 Gy）,小肠的受照体积减小不明显（P＞0.05）。对膀胱、直肠、股骨头、脊髓两种体位的剂量体积差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论　子宫颈癌行IMRT时采用俯卧位能更好地保护小肠,建议对子宫颈癌行IMRT时采用俯卧位。     

A phase II trial for the optimisation of treatment position in the radiation therapy of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND: Patient immobilisation and position are important contributors to the reproducibility and accuracy of radiation therapy. In addition the choice of position can alter the external contour of the treated area and has the potential to alter the spatial relationship between internal organs. The published literature demonstrates variation in the use of the prone and supine position for prostate cancer radiation therapy. Previous investigators using different protocols for patient preparation, imaging and target volume definition have demonstrated changes in the calculated therapeutic ratio comparing the two positions. We did not use rigid immobilisation, laxatives, rectal catheters or bladder voiding and assessed if in the prone position would cause a reduction of the dose to the rectum. We performed a prospective comparison of the two positions in 26 patients to determine if the differences in the spatial relation between the rectum and the planning target volume (PTV) would impact on dose-volume histograms to organs at risk (OAR). We also determined if any such improvement might permit dose escalation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients with clinically localized prostate cancer consented to participate in this study. All patients underwent a planning CT scan in both the prone and supine treatment positions. The PTV and OAR were drawn on each set of scans by one of the investigators. The PTV included the prostate and seminal vesicles with a 1cm margin except posteriorly where this margin was reduced to 5mm. The outer circumference of the bladder, rectal wall, small bowel (when present) was drawn along with femoral heads. 3D conformal treatment plans were computed using Helax TMS version 6.1B. A 3-field treatment technique was employed with energy of 10/15 MV. The prescribed dose was 70 Gy and the PTV was encompassed by the 95% isodose and the maximum dose was always less than 107%. Cumulative dose-volume histograms were calculated for the PTV, rectum, bladder, femoral heads and small bowel (when present). These non-uniform histograms for both the prone and supine treatment positions were transformed into uniform ones using the effective volume method [Kutcher J, Burman C. Calculation of probability factors for non-uniform normal tissue irradiation: the effective volume method. Med Phys 1987;14:487]. RESULTS: Twenty-one of the 26 (80%) patients had a lower effective volume of rectum irradiated if the prone instead of the supine treatment position was used. The median value of the effective volume in the supine treatment position was 31.74 Gy while the median value in the prone position was 22.48 Gy. The dose escalation was applied to the patients in the prone treatment position until the effective volume for the rectum was the same as that in the supine position. The range of dose escalation possible for these patients was 0.1-7.9 Gy. These patients could potentially have the dose escalated from the prescribed dose of 70 Gy for the supine position without any increase in side effects. For the five patients where no potential benefit was found when changing treatment position, only two patients displayed a significant (>1 Gy) advantage for the supine treatment position. Twenty-one of the 26 patients also showed an advantage for the prone treatment position in relation to bladder dose. CONCLUSION: The use of the prone position reduced the dose to the unprepared rectum and unvoided bladder in the majority of cases. It should be considered particularly in cases where large posterior seminal vesicles cause significant overlap between the planning target volume and the rectum.     

A study of image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy with fiducials for localized prostate cancer including pelvic lymph nodes

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 treatment 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(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.     

早期乳腺癌保乳术后全乳调强放射治疗与常规切线野放疗的剂量学比较

目的探讨早期乳腺癌保乳术后全乳调强放射治疗(intensity-modulated radiotherapy,IMRT)的剂量学优势。方法选择6例接受保乳手术的T1N0M0早期乳腺癌病例,其中左侧乳腺癌4例,右侧乳腺癌2例,应用三维调强治疗计划系统为每例患者设计常规切线野与IMRT2种全乳放射治疗计划,处方剂量均为50Gy/25次。用剂量体积直方图(dose volume histograms,DVH)来比较2种计划中计划靶体积(planning target volume,PTV)、危及器官(organs at risks,OARs)的剂量学差异。结果在2种计划中,95%PTV均接受50Gy,99%PTV均接受95%的处方剂量;但在IMRT计划组V110%(接受大于110%处方剂量体积占PTV的百分比)下降了9.1%(46.3%比37.2%,P<0.05);同侧肺的V20(至少接受20Gy照射的肺体积占同侧肺体积的百分比)下降了7.2%(26.8%比18.0%,P<0.05);同侧肺的V30下降了12.0%(23.2%比11.2%,P<0.05);4例左侧乳腺癌患者的心脏V30下降了3.8%(7.0%比3.2%,P<0.05)。结论全乳IMRT在保证靶区覆盖率的前提下,改善了靶区内剂量的均匀性,降低了危及器官的受照剂量及缩小了危及器官的照射体积,尤其是同侧肺、心脏的照射体积,降低放射性肺炎及心血管事件发生的可能。     

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy improves lymph node coverage and dose to critical structures compared with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantify gains in lymph node coverage and critical structure dose reduction for whole-pelvis (WP) and extended-field (EF) radiotherapy in prostate cancer using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) compared with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) for the first treatment phase of 45 Gy in the concurrent treatment of lymph nodes and prostate. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From January to August 2005, 35 patients with localized prostate cancer were treated with pelvic IMRT; 7 had nodes defined up to L5-S1 (Group 1), and 28 had nodes defined above L5-S1 (Group 2). Each patient had 2 plans retrospectively generated: 1 WP 3DCRT plan using bony landmarks, and 1 EF 3DCRT plan to cover the vascular defined volumes. Dose-volume histograms for the lymph nodes, rectum, bladder, small bowel, and penile bulb were compared by group. RESULTS: For Group 1, WP 3DCRT missed 25% of pelvic nodes with the prescribed dose 45 Gy and missed 18% with the 95% prescribed dose 42.75 Gy, whereas WP IMRT achieved V(45 Gy) = 98% and V(42.75 Gy) = 100%. Compared with WP 3DCRT, IMRT reduced bladder V(45 Gy) by 78%, rectum V(45 Gy) by 48%, and small bowel V(45 Gy) by 232 cm3. EF 3DCRT achieved 95% coverage of nodes for all patients at high cost to critical structures. For Group 2, IMRT decreased bladder V(45 Gy) by 90%, rectum V(45 Gy) by 54% and small bowel V(45 Gy) by 455 cm3 compared with EF 3DCRT. CONCLUSION: In this study WP 3DCRT missed a significant percentage of pelvic nodes. Although EF 3DCRT achieved 95% pelvic nodal coverage, it increased critical structure doses. IMRT improved pelvic nodal coverage while decreasing dose to bladder, rectum, small bowel, and penile bulb. For patients with extended node involvement, IMRT especially decreases small bowel dose.     

Persistently better treatment planning results of intensity-modulated (IMRT) over conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in prostate cancer patients with significant variation of clinical target volume and/or organs-at-risk

PURPOSE: To compare the dose coverage of planning and clinical target volume (PTV, CTV), and organs-at-risk (OAR) between intensity-modulated (3D-IMRT) and conventional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) before and after internal organ variation in prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We selected 10 patients with clinically significant interfraction volume changes. Patients were treated with 3D-IMRT to 80 Gy (minimum PTV dose of 76 Gy, excluding rectum). Fictitious, equivalent 3D-CRT plans (80 Gy at isocenter, with 95% isodose (76 Gy) coverage of PTV, with rectal blocking above 76 Gy) were generated using the same planning CT data set ("CT planning"). The plans were then also applied to a verification CT scan ("CT verify") obtained at a different moment. PTV, CTV, and OAR dose coverage were compared using non-parametric tests statistics for V95, V90 (% of the volume receiving 95 or 90% of the dose) and D50 (dose to 50% of the volume). RESULTS: Mean V95 of the PTV for "CT planning" was 94.3% (range, 88-99) vs 89.1% (range, 84-94.5) for 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT (p=0.005), respectively. Mean V95 of the CTV for "CT verify" was 97% for both 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT. Mean D50 of the rectum for "CT planning" was 26.8 Gy (range, 22-35) vs 43.5 Gy (range, 33.5-50.5) for 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT (p=0.0002), respectively. For "CT verify", this D50 was 31.1 Gy (range, 16.5-44) vs 44.2 Gy (range, 34-55) for 3D-IMRT and 3D-CRT (p=0.006), respectively. V95 of the rectum was 0% for both plans for "CT planning", and 2.3% (3D-IMRT) vs 2.1% (3D-CRT) for "CT verify" (p=non-sig.). CONCLUSION: Dose coverage of the PTV and OAR was better with 3D-IMRT for each patient and remained so after internal volume changes.     

Effect of anatomic motion on proton therapy dose distributions in prostate cancer treatment

PURPOSE: To determine the dosimetric impact of interfraction anatomic movements in prostate cancer patients receiving proton therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For each of the 10 patients studied, 8 computed tomography (CT) scans were selected from sets of daily setup CT images that were acquired from a cohort of prostate cancer patients. The images were acquired in the treatment room using the CT-on-rails system. First, standard proton therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were designed for each patient using standard modality-specific methods. The images, the proton plan, and the IMRT plan were then aligned to the eight CT images based on skin marks. The doses were recalculated on these eight CT images using beam from the standard plans. Second, the plans were redesigned and evaluated assuming a smaller clinical target volume to planning target volume margin (3 mm). The images and the corresponding plans were then realigned based on the center of volume of the prostate. Dose distributions were evaluated using isodose displays, dose-volume histograms, and target coverage. RESULTS: For the skin-marker alignment method, 4 of the 10 IMRT plans were deficient, whereas 3 of 10 proton plans were compromised. For the alignment method based on the center of volume of the prostate, only the proton plan for 1 patient was deficient, whereas 3 of the 10 IMRT plans were suboptimal. CONCLUSION: A comparison of passively scattered proton therapy and highly conformal IMRT plans for prostate cancer revealed that the dosimetric impact of interfractional anatomic motions was similar for both modalities.