Literature DB >> 19647638

Dosimetric and radiobiologic comparison of 3D conformal versus intensity modulated planning techniques for prostate bed radiotherapy.

Bridget F Koontz1, Shiva Das, Kathy Temple, Sigrun Bynum, Suzanne Catalano, Jason I Koontz, Gustavo S Montana, James R Oleson.   

Abstract

Adjuvant radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer improves biochemical and clinical disease-free survival. While comparisons in intact prostate cancer show a benefit for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) over 3D conformal planning, this has not been studied for post-prostatectomy radiotherapy (RT). This study compares normal tissue and target dosimetry and radiobiological modeling of IMRT vs. 3D conformal planning in the postoperative setting. 3D conformal plans were designed for 15 patients who had been treated with IMRT planning for salvage post-prostatectomy RT. The same computed tomography (CT) and target/normal structure contours, as well as prescription dose, was used for both IMRT and 3D plans. Normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) were calculated based on the dose given to the bladder and rectum by both plans. Dose-volume histogram and NTCP data were compared by paired t-test. Bladder and rectal sparing were improved with IMRT planning compared to 3D conformal planning. The volume of the bladder receiving at least 75% (V75) and 50% (V50) of the dose was significantly reduced by 28% and 17%, respectively (p = 0.002 and 0.037). Rectal dose was similarly reduced, V75 by 33% and V50 by 17% (p = 0.001 and 0.004). While there was no difference in the volume of rectum receiving at least 65 Gy (V65), IMRT planning significant reduced the volume receiving 40 Gy or more (V40, p = 0.009). Bladder V40 and V65 were not significantly different between planning modalities. Despite these dosimetric differences, there was no significant difference in the NTCP for either bladder or rectal injury. IMRT planning reduces the volume of bladder and rectum receiving high doses during post-prostatectomy RT. Because of relatively low doses given to the bladder and rectum, there was no statistically significant improvement in NTCP between the 3D conformal and IMRT plans.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19647638     DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2008.10.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Dosim        ISSN: 1873-4022            Impact factor:   1.482


  10 in total

1.  Preliminary patient-reported outcomes analysis of 3-dimensional radiation therapy versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy on the high-dose arm of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0126 prostate cancer trial.

Authors:  Deborah W Bruner; Daniel Hunt; Jeff M Michalski; Walter R Bosch; James M Galvin; Mahul Amin; Canhua Xiao; Jean-Paul Bahary; Malti Patel; Susan Chafe; George Rodrigues; Harold Lau; Marie Duclos; Madhava Baikadi; Snehal Deshmukh; Howard M Sandler
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Physician beliefs and practices for adjuvant and salvage radiation therapy after prostatectomy.

Authors:  Timothy N Showalter; Nitin Ohri; Kristopher G Teti; Kathleen A Foley; Scott W Keith; Edouard J Trabulsi; Costas D Lallas; Adam P Dicker; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Laura T Pizzi; Leonard G Gomella
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2011-05-24       Impact factor: 7.038

3.  Comparison of Radiobiological Models for Radiation Therapy Plans of Prostate Cancer: Three-dimensional Conformal versus Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy.

Authors:  Mesbahi A; Rasouli N; Mohammadzadeh M; Nasiri Motlagh B; Ozan Tekin H
Journal:  J Biomed Phys Eng       Date:  2019-06-01

4.  Total error shift patterns for daily CT on rails image-guided radiotherapy to the prostate bed.

Authors:  Ronaldo Cavalieri; Hiram A Gay; Jingxia Liu; Maria C Ferreira; Helvecio C Mota; Claudio H Sibata; Ron R Allison
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2011-10-24       Impact factor: 3.481

5.  Dosimetric comparison between IMRT delivery modes: Step-and-shoot, sliding window, and volumetric modulated arc therapy - for whole pelvis radiation therapy of intermediate-to-high risk prostate adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Tania De La Fuente Herman; Erich Schnell; Julie Young; Kim Hildebrand; Ozer Algan; Elizabeth Syzek; Terence Herman; Salahuddin Ahmad
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2013-10

6.  The impact of positron emission tomography on primary tumour delineation and dosimetric outcome in intensity modulated radiotherapy of early T-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Authors:  Vincent W C Wu; Wan-Shun Leung; Kwun-Lam Wong; Ying-Kit Chan; Wing-Lam Law; Wing-Kwan Leung; Yat-Long Yu
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2016-08-24       Impact factor: 3.481

7.  Impact of advanced radiotherapy techniques and dose intensification on toxicity of salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Natsuo Tomita; Kaoru Uchiyama; Tomoki Mizuno; Mikiko Imai; Chikao Sugie; Shiho Ayakawa; Masanari Niwa; Tooru Matsui; Shinya Otsuka; Yoshihiko Manabe; Kento Nomura; Takuhito Kondo; Katsura Kosaki; Akifumi Miyakawa; Akihiko Miyamoto; Shinya Takemoto; Yuto Kitagawa; Takahiro Yasui; Yuta Shibamoto
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-01-10       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Three Years of Salvage IMRT for Prostate Cancer: Results of the Montpellier Cancer Center.

Authors:  Olivier Riou; Pascal Fenoglietto; Benoit Laliberté; Cathy Menkarios; Carmen Llacer Moscardo; Meng Huor Hay; Norbert Ailleres; Jean-Bernard Dubois; Xavier Rebillard; David Azria
Journal:  ISRN Urol       Date:  2012-03-20

9.  Treatment-related complications of radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy: comparative effectiveness of intensity-modulated versus conformal radiation therapy.

Authors:  Edwin F Crandley; Sarah E Hegarty; Terry Hyslop; David D Wilson; Adam P Dicker; Timothy N Showalter
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 4.452

Review 10.  Rationale and development of image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy post-prostatectomy: the present standard of care?

Authors:  Julia R Murray; Helen A McNair; David P Dearnaley
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2015-11-11       Impact factor: 3.989

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.