AIMS: To compare the radiotherapy planning techniques from two multicentre randomised external beam radiotherapy trials in the UK of conformal radiotherapy vs intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Sixteen sequential patients with histologically confirmed localised prostate cancer treated in the conventional or hypofractionated IMRT trial (CHHiP) were planned using both the CHHiP and Medical Research Council RT-01 planning protocols to 74 Gy in 37 daily fractions. The CHHiP plan used a single phase simple forward planned three-field IMRT plan for easy multicentre adoption. The RT-01 plan used two phases: three-field conformal radiotherapy plan to 64 Gy followed by a six-field boost of 10 Gy. After coverage of the planning target volumes according to the respective trial protocols, the dose to the rectum and bladder was assessed for the two planning techniques. RESULTS: There was acceptable planning target volume coverage by both the CHHiP and RT-01 plans. All CHHiP plans produced lower mean irradiated rectal volumes at all measured dose levels compared with the RT-01 plans, particularly for irradiated rectal volumes at 50 and 70 Gy (P<0.05). In the cases when a CHHiP plan failed to meet its own trial dose constraints, the volumes of irradiated rectum were less than if an RT-01 planning technique had been used. The CHHiP plans gave lower mean irradiated bladder volumes at both 50 and 60 Gy, but higher volumes at 74 Gy. These differences in irradiated bladder volumes were significant at the 60 and 74 Gy dose levels (P<0.05) in favour of the CHHiP and RT-01 plans, respectively. CONCLUSION: The forward planned CHHiP IMRT planning solution gives more favourable rectal sparing than the RT-01 plan. This is important to limit any potential increase in late rectal toxicity for prostate cancer patients treated with high-dose conventional or hypofractionated schedules.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To compare the radiotherapy planning techniques from two multicentre randomised external beam radiotherapy trials in the UK of conformal radiotherapy vs intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen sequential patients with histologically confirmed localised prostate cancer treated in the conventional or hypofractionated IMRT trial (CHHiP) were planned using both the CHHiP and Medical Research Council RT-01 planning protocols to 74 Gy in 37 daily fractions. The CHHiP plan used a single phase simple forward planned three-field IMRT plan for easy multicentre adoption. The RT-01 plan used two phases: three-field conformal radiotherapy plan to 64 Gy followed by a six-field boost of 10 Gy. After coverage of the planning target volumes according to the respective trial protocols, the dose to the rectum and bladder was assessed for the two planning techniques. RESULTS: There was acceptable planning target volume coverage by both the CHHiP and RT-01 plans. All CHHiP plans produced lower mean irradiated rectal volumes at all measured dose levels compared with the RT-01 plans, particularly for irradiated rectal volumes at 50 and 70 Gy (P<0.05). In the cases when a CHHiP plan failed to meet its own trial dose constraints, the volumes of irradiated rectum were less than if an RT-01 planning technique had been used. The CHHiP plans gave lower mean irradiated bladder volumes at both 50 and 60 Gy, but higher volumes at 74 Gy. These differences in irradiated bladder volumes were significant at the 60 and 74 Gy dose levels (P<0.05) in favour of the CHHiP and RT-01 plans, respectively. CONCLUSION: The forward planned CHHiP IMRT planning solution gives more favourable rectal sparing than the RT-01 plan. This is important to limit any potential increase in late rectal toxicity for prostate cancerpatients treated with high-dose conventional or hypofractionated schedules.
Authors: Marigdalia K Ramirez-Fort; Marc J Rogers; Roberto Santiago; Sean S Mahase; Melissa Mendez; Yi Zheng; Xiang Kong; James A Kashanian; M Junaid Niaz; Shearwood McClelland; Xiaodong Wu; Neil H Bander; Peter Schlegel; John P Mulhall; Christopher S Lange Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2020-03-19
Authors: O F Naismith; C Griffin; I Syndikus; C South; H Mayles; P Mayles; V Khoo; C Scrase; J Graham; S Hassan; E Hall; D P Dearnaley Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Julia Murray; Sarah Gulliford; Clare Griffin; Anna Wilkins; Isabel Syndikus; John Staffurth; Miguel Panades; Christopher Scrase; Chris Parker; Vincent Khoo; Jamie Dean; Helen Mayles; Philip Mayles; Simon Thomas; Olivia Naismith; Helen Mossop; Clare Cruickshank; Emma Hall; David Dearnaley Journal: Clin Transl Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-12-31
Authors: Mona Splinter; Ilias Sachpazidis; Tilman Bostel; Tobias Fechter; Constantinos Zamboglou; Christian Thieke; Oliver Jäkel; Peter E Huber; Jürgen Debus; Dimos Baltas; Nils H Nicolay Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Alexander Grimwood; Helen A McNair; Tuathan P O'Shea; Stephen Gilroy; Karen Thomas; Jeffrey C Bamber; Alison C Tree; Emma J Harris Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Julia Murray; Clare Griffin; Sarah Gulliford; Isabel Syndikus; John Staffurth; Miguel Panades; Christopher Scrase; Chris Parker; Vincent Khoo; Jamie Dean; Helen Mayles; Philip Mayles; Simon Thomas; Olivia Naismith; Angela Baker; Helen Mossop; Clare Cruickshank; Emma Hall; David Dearnaley Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2019-11-22 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: David Dearnaley; Isabel Syndikus; Helen Mossop; Vincent Khoo; Alison Birtle; David Bloomfield; John Graham; Peter Kirkbride; John Logue; Zafar Malik; Julian Money-Kyrle; Joe M O'Sullivan; Miguel Panades; Chris Parker; Helen Patterson; Christopher Scrase; John Staffurth; Andrew Stockdale; Jean Tremlett; Margaret Bidmead; Helen Mayles; Olivia Naismith; Chris South; Annie Gao; Clare Cruickshank; Shama Hassan; Julia Pugh; Clare Griffin; Emma Hall Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 41.316