Literature DB >> 15590192

Online image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: How much improvement can we expect? A theoretical assessment of clinical benefits and potential dose escalation by improving precision and accuracy of radiation delivery.

Michel Ghilezan1, Di Yan, Jian Liang, David Jaffray, John Wong, Alvaro Martinez.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To quantify the theoretical benefit, in terms of improvement in precision and accuracy of treatment delivery and in dose increase, of using online image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) performed with onboard cone-beam computed tomography (CT), in an ideal setting of no intrafraction motion/deformation, in the treatment of prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-two prostate cancer patients treated with conventional radiotherapy underwent multiple serial CT scans (median 18 scans per patient) during their treatment. We assumed that these data sets were equivalent to image sets obtainable by an onboard cone-beam CT. Each patient treatment was simulated with conventional IMRT and online IG-IMRT separately. The conventional IMRT plan was generated on the basis of pretreatment CT, with a clinical target volume to planning target volume (CTV-to-PTV) margin of 1 cm, and the online IG-IMRT plan was created before each treatment fraction on the basis of the CT scan of the day, without CTV-to-PTV margin. The inverse planning process was similar for both conventional IMRT and online IG-IMRT. Treatment dose for each organ of interest was quantified, including patient daily setup error and internal organ motion/deformation. We used generalized equivalent uniform dose (EUD) to compare the two approaches. The generalized EUD (percentage) of each organ of interest was scaled relative to the prescription dose at treatment isocenter for evaluation and comparison. On the basis of bladder wall and rectal wall EUD, a dose-escalation coefficient was calculated, representing the potential increment of the treatment dose achievable with online IG-IMRT as compared with conventional IMRT.
RESULTS: With respect to radiosensitive tumor, the average EUD for the target (prostate plus seminal vesicles) was 96.8% for conventional IMRT and 98.9% for online IG-IMRT, with standard deviations (SDs) of 5.6% and 0.7%, respectively (p < 0.0001). The average EUDs of bladder wall and rectal wall for conventional IMRT vs. online IG-IMRT were 70.1% vs. 47.3%, and 79.4% vs. 72.2%, respectively. On average, a target dose increase of 13% (SD = 9.7%) can be achieved with online IG-IMRT based on rectal wall EUDs and 53.3% (SD = 15.3%) based on bladder wall EUDs. However, the variation (SD = 9.7%) is fairly large among patients; 27% of patients had only minimal benefit (<5% of dose increment) from online IG-IMRT, and 32% had significant benefit (>15%-41% of dose increment).
CONCLUSIONS: The ideal maximum dose increment achievable with online IG-IMRT is, on average, 13% with respect to the dose-limiting organ of rectum. However, there is a large interpatient variation, ranging <5%-41%. The results can be applied to calibrate other practical online image-guided techniques for prostate cancer radiotherapy, when intratreatment organ motion/deformation and machine delivery accuracy are considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15590192     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.07.709

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys        ISSN: 0360-3016            Impact factor:   7.038


  31 in total

Review 1.  A review of image-guided radiotherapy.

Authors:  George T Y Chen; Gregory C Sharp; Shinichiro Mori
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2008-12-16

2.  A pseudoinverse deformation vector field generator and its applications.

Authors:  C Yan; H Zhong; M Murphy; E Weiss; J V Siebers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 3.  Percutaneous radiotherapy for low-risk prostate cancer: options for 2007.

Authors:  Dirk Bottke; Thomas Wiegel
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-02-15       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Dosimetric and volumetric effects in clinical target volume and organs at risk during postprostatectomy radiotherapy.

Authors:  Ahmed Gawish; Ahmed Ali Chughtai; Michael J Eble
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 3.621

Review 5.  Adaptive radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Michel Ghilezan; Di Yan; Alvaro Martinez
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 5.934

6.  Multi-system verification of registrations for image-guided radiotherapy in clinical trials.

Authors:  Yunfeng Cui; James M Galvin; William L Straube; Walter R Bosch; James A Purdy; X Allen Li; Ying Xiao
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-01-13       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  An integrated approach to segmentation and nonrigid registration for application in image-guided pelvic radiotherapy.

Authors:  Chao Lu; Sudhakar Chelikani; Xenophon Papademetris; Jonathan P Knisely; Michael F Milosevic; Zhe Chen; David A Jaffray; Lawrence H Staib; James S Duncan
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2011-05-20       Impact factor: 8.545

8.  Impact of rectum and bladder anatomy in intrafractional prostate motion during hypofractionated radiation therapy.

Authors:  M Roch; A Zapatero; P Castro; D Büchser; L Pérez; D Hernández; C Ansón; M Chevalier; F García-Vicente
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 3.405

9.  Scanned ion beam therapy for prostate carcinoma: Comparison of single plan treatment and daily plan-adapted treatment.

Authors:  Sebastian Hild; Christian Graeff; Antoni Rucinski; Klemens Zink; Gregor Habl; Marco Durante; Klaus Herfarth; Christoph Bert
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2015-11-27       Impact factor: 3.621

Review 10.  A new method for synthesizing radiation dose-response data from multiple trials applied to prostate cancer.

Authors:  Patricia Diez; Ivan S Vogelius; Søren M Bentzen
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-10-31       Impact factor: 7.038

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.