PURPOSE: To compare dose-volume consequences of the inclusion of various portions of the seminal vesicles (SVs) in the clinical target volume (CTV) in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for patients with prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 10 patients with prostate cancer, three matched IMRT plans were generated, including 1 cm, 2 cm, or the entire SVs (SV1, SV2, or SVtotal, respectively) in the CTV. Prescription dose (79.2 Gy) and IMRT planning were according to the high-dose arm of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0126 protocol. We compared plans for percentage of rectal volume receiving minimum doses of 60-80 Gy and for rectal normal tissue complication probability (NTCP[R]). RESULTS: There was a detectable increase in rectal dose in SV2 and SVtotal compared with SV1. The magnitude of difference between plans was modest in the high-dose range. In 2 patients, there was underdosing of the planning target volume (PTV) because of constraints on rectal dose in the SVtotal plans. All other plans were compliant with RTOG 0126 protocol requirements. Mean NTCP increased from 14% to 17% and 18% for SV1, SV2, and SV total, respectively. The NTCP correlated with the size of PTV-rectum volume overlap (Pearson's r = 0.86; p < 0.0001), but not with SV volume. CONCLUSIONS: Doubling (1 to 2 cm) or comprehensively increasing (1 cm to full SVs) SV volume included in the CTV for patients with prostate IMRT is achievable in the majority of cases without exceeding RTOG dose-volume limits or underdosing the PTV and results in only a moderate increase in NTCP.
PURPOSE: To compare dose-volume consequences of the inclusion of various portions of the seminal vesicles (SVs) in the clinical target volume (CTV) in intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for patients with prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 10 patients with prostate cancer, three matched IMRT plans were generated, including 1 cm, 2 cm, or the entire SVs (SV1, SV2, or SVtotal, respectively) in the CTV. Prescription dose (79.2 Gy) and IMRT planning were according to the high-dose arm of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0126 protocol. We compared plans for percentage of rectal volume receiving minimum doses of 60-80 Gy and for rectal normal tissue complication probability (NTCP[R]). RESULTS: There was a detectable increase in rectal dose in SV2 and SVtotal compared with SV1. The magnitude of difference between plans was modest in the high-dose range. In 2 patients, there was underdosing of the planning target volume (PTV) because of constraints on rectal dose in the SVtotal plans. All other plans were compliant with RTOG 0126 protocol requirements. Mean NTCP increased from 14% to 17% and 18% for SV1, SV2, and SV total, respectively. The NTCP correlated with the size of PTV-rectum volume overlap (Pearson's r = 0.86; p < 0.0001), but not with SV volume. CONCLUSIONS: Doubling (1 to 2 cm) or comprehensively increasing (1 cm to full SVs) SV volume included in the CTV for patients with prostate IMRT is achievable in the majority of cases without exceeding RTOG dose-volume limits or underdosing the PTV and results in only a moderate increase in NTCP.
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Marc D Piroth; Karin Fischedick; Richard Holy; Jens Klotz; Sandra Nussen; Barbara Krenkel; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Marie K Gurka; Leonard N Chen; Aditi Bhagat; Rudy Moures; Joy S Kim; Thomas Yung; Siyuan Lei; Brian T Collins; Pranay Krishnan; Simeng Suy; Anatoly Dritschilo; John H Lynch; Sean P Collins Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 3.481