A dosimetric comparison of RapidArc and IMRT with hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate for treatment of prostate cancer

Objective:

To compare the dosimetric results and treatment delivery efficiency among RapidArc® (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), 7-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (7-f IMRT) and 9-field IMRT (9-f IMRT) with hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate.

Methods:

RapidArc, 7-f IMRT and 9-f IMRT plans were created for 21 consecutive patients treated for high-risk prostate cancer using the Eclipse™ treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems). All plans were designed to deliver 70.0 Gy in 28 fractions to the prostate planning target volume (PTV) while simultaneously delivering 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions to the pelvic nodal PTV. Target coverage and sparing of organs at risk (OARs) were compared across techniques. The total number of monitor units (MUs) and the treatment time were used to assess treatment delivery efficiency.

Results:

RapidArc resulted in slightly superior conformity and homogeneity of prostate PTV, whereas all plans were comparable with respect to dose to the nodal PTV. Although OARs sparing for RapidArc and 7-f IMRT plans were almost equivalent, 9-f IMRT achieved better sparing of the rectum and bladder than RapidArc and 7-f IMRT. RapidArc provided the highest treatment delivery efficiency with the lowest MUs and shortest treatment time.

Conclusion:

RapidArc resulted in similar OAR sparing to 7-f IMRT, whereas 9-f IMRT provided the best OAR sparing. Treatment delivery efficiency is significantly higher for RapidArc.

Advances in knowledge:

This study validated the feasibility and limitations of RapidArc in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer with complex pelvic target volumes.Radiotherapy has played an important role in the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer. Several randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that high-dose radiotherapy improves prostate-specific antigen control, and a recently published meta-analysis [1] showed that high-dose radiotherapy is superior to conventional-dose radiotherapy in preventing biochemical or clinical failure and prostate cancer-specific death. However, dose escalation has been limited by toxicity in conventional techniques. Therefore, prostate cancer is one of the most common tumour sites treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), which enables the delivery of highly conformal dose distribution to the target while reducing the dose to critical organs. IMRT also has the ability to produce inhomogeneous dose distribution, which allows for simultaneous differential dose delivery to multiple tumour targets (simultaneous integrated boost). Despite the obvious benefits of IMRT, there are some disadvantages. The potential downsides of IMRT include the increased time required for radiotherapy delivery and increased monitor units (MUs) needed compared with conventional three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy.Volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is a relatively new rotational radiation therapy technique based on the idea of delivering IMRT with continuous dynamic modulation of the dose rate, field aperture and gantry speed. Compared with IMRT, the potential benefit of VMAT is the increase in delivery efficiency, including a shorter treatment time and a lower number of MUs.Several recent studies have compared VMAT with IMRT for prostate radiotherapy [2–13]. Although shortened treatment time is a common finding, there are inconsistencies in the dosimetric outcome. Many studies considering relatively simple target volumes that included prostate only or prostate with seminal vesicles found that VMAT achieved equal or better normal tissue sparing over IMRT [2,3,5,6,8–10,12]. However, very few studies have focused on more complex pelvic target volumes, including the prostate, seminal vesicles and pelvic lymph nodes [4,7,11,13]. Some of these studies found largely equivalent sparing of organs at risk (OARs) between VMAT and IMRT [7,13]. However, other planning studies have reported contradictory results. Yoo et al [4] noted superior OARs sparing with IMRT to VMAT. Myrehaug et al [11] found VMAT to have no consistent dosimetric advantage over IMRT. Thus, those studies have yielded mixed results. Our study aims to expand such studies to quantitatively evaluate VMAT for prostate cancer cases with complex pelvic target volumes and simultaneous integrated boost techniques.RapidArc® is one of the VMAT techniques implementing the progressive resolution optimisation algorithm in the Eclipse™ planning system by Varian Medical Systems (Palo Alto, CA). In the present study, we compare the performance of RapidArc, 7-field IMRT (7-f IMRT) and 9-field IMRT (9-f IMRT) with hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate for patients with high-risk prostate cancer. This study focused on the evaluation of the dosimetric results and treatment delivery efficiency.