Comparative treatment planning on localized prostate carcinoma conformal photon- versus proton-based radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To assess the potential benefit of proton-beam therapy in comparison to 3-D conformal photon therapy and photon- based intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in prostate carcinoma for various stages of disease.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In five patients a 3-D conformal proton-based (two lateral beams) irradiation technique was compared with 3-D conformal photon-beam radiotherapy (four-field box) and IMRT (seven beams). For each patient different target volumes (CTVs) were defined according to early, intermediate and advanced stages of disease: CTV I consisted of the prostate gland, CTV II encompassed prostate and basis of seminal vesicles, and CTV III the prostate and seminal vesicles. Corresponding planning target volumes PTV I-III were defined by uniformly adding a margin of 5 mm to CTV I-III. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were analyzed for the different PTVs and various organs at risk (OARs), i.e., rectal wall, bladder, both femoral heads. In addition, maximum and mean doses were derived for the various structures and irradiated non-target tissue volumes were compared for PTV I-III and the different irradiation techniques. Finally, dose conformity and target dose homogeneity were assessed.
RESULTS: With photon- and proton-based radiotherapy techniques similar dose distributions were determined for PTV I-III: mean and maximum PTV dose values were between 99-104% and 102-107% of the normalized total doses (70 Gy), respectively. Conformity indices varied from 1.4 to 1.5 for the photon techniques, whereas for proton-beam radiotherapy values ranged from 1.1 to 1.4. Both the 3-D conformal and the IMRT photon treatment technique resulted in increased mean doses (approximately 40-80%) for OARs when compared to protons. With both photon techniques non-target tissue volumes were irradiated to higher doses (mean dose difference > or = 70%) compared to proton-beam radiotherapy. Differences occurred mainly at the low and medium dose levels, whereas in high dose levels similar values were obtained. In comparison to conformal 3-D treatments IMRT reduced doses to OARs in the medium dose range, especially for the rectal wall.
CONCLUSION: IMRT enabled dose reductions to OARs in the medium dose range compared to 3-D conformal radiotherapy. A rather simple two-field proton-based treatment technique further reduced doses to OARs compared to photon-beam radiotherapy. The advantageous dose distribution of proton-beam therapy for prostate cancer may result in reduced side effects, which needs to be confirmed in clinical studies.