PURPOSE: To identify the technical aspects of image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer that could result in a clinically meaningful incidental dose to the testes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We examined three sources that contribute incidental dose to the testes, namely, from internal photon scattering from IMRT small field and large pelvic nodal fields with 6 or 15 MV, from neutrons when >10-MV photons are used, and from daily image-guided fiducial-based portal imaging. Using clinical data from 10 patients who received IMRT for prostate cancer, and thermo-luminescent dosimeter measurements in phantom, we estimated the dose to the testes from each of these sources. RESULTS: A mean testicular dose of 172 and 220 cGy results from internal photon scatter for pelvic nodal fields and 68 and 93 cGy for prostate-only fields, for 6- and 15-MV energies, respectively. For 15-MV photon energies, the mean testicular dose from neutrons is 60 cGy for pelvic fields and 31 cGy for prostate-only fields. From daily portal MV image guidance, the testes-in-field mean dose is 350 cGy, whereas the testes-out-of-field scatter dose is 16 cGy. Dosimetric comparisons between IMRT using 6-MV and 15-MV photon energies are not significantly different. Worst-case scenarios can potentially deliver cumulative incidental mean testicular doses of 630 cGy, whereas best-case scenarios can deliver only 84 cGy. CONCLUSIONS: Incidental dose to the testes from prostate IMRT can be minimized by opting to restrict the use of elective pelvic nodal fields, by choosing photon energies <10 MV, and by using the smallest port sizes necessary for daily image guidance. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: To identify the technical aspects of image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for localized prostate cancer that could result in a clinically meaningful incidental dose to the testes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We examined three sources that contribute incidental dose to the testes, namely, from internal photon scattering from IMRT small field and large pelvic nodal fields with 6 or 15 MV, from neutrons when >10-MV photons are used, and from daily image-guided fiducial-based portal imaging. Using clinical data from 10 patients who received IMRT for prostate cancer, and thermo-luminescent dosimeter measurements in phantom, we estimated the dose to the testes from each of these sources. RESULTS: A mean testicular dose of 172 and 220 cGy results from internal photon scatter for pelvic nodal fields and 68 and 93 cGy for prostate-only fields, for 6- and 15-MV energies, respectively. For 15-MV photon energies, the mean testicular dose from neutrons is 60 cGy for pelvic fields and 31 cGy for prostate-only fields. From daily portal MV image guidance, the testes-in-field mean dose is 350 cGy, whereas the testes-out-of-field scatter dose is 16 cGy. Dosimetric comparisons between IMRT using 6-MV and 15-MV photon energies are not significantly different. Worst-case scenarios can potentially deliver cumulative incidental mean testicular doses of 630 cGy, whereas best-case scenarios can deliver only 84 cGy. CONCLUSIONS: Incidental dose to the testes from prostate IMRT can be minimized by opting to restrict the use of elective pelvic nodal fields, by choosing photon energies <10 MV, and by using the smallest port sizes necessary for daily image guidance. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Jeffrey M Martin; Elizabeth A Handorf; Robert A Price; George Cherian; Mark K Buyyounouski; David Y Chen; Alexander Kutikov; Matthew E Johnson; Chung-Ming Charlie Ma; Eric M Horwitz Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: Eric K Oermann; Simeng Suy; Heather N Hanscom; Joy S Kim; Sue Lei; Xia Yu; Guowei Zhang; Brook Ennis; Joyann P Rohan; Nathaniel Piel; Benjamin A Sherer; Devin Borum; Viola J Chen; Gerald P Batipps; Nicholas L Constantinople; Stephen W Dejter; Gaurav Bandi; John Pahira; Kevin G McGeagh; Lucile Adams-Campbell; Reena Jha; Nancy A Dawson; Brian T Collins; Anatoly Dritschilo; John H Lynch; Sean P Collins Journal: J Hematol Oncol Date: 2011-03-27 Impact factor: 17.388
Authors: Whoon Jong Kil; Romaine C Nichols; Bradford S Hoppe; Christopher G Morris; Robert B Marcus; William Mendenhall; Nancy P Mendenhall; Zuofeng Li; Joseph A Costa; Christopher R Williams; Randal H Henderson Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Olusola Obayomi-Davies; Leonard N Chen; Aditi Bhagat; Henry C Wright; Sunghae Uhm; Joy S Kim; Thomas M Yung; Siyuan Lei; Gerald P Batipps; John Pahira; Kevin G McGeagh; Brian T Collins; Keith Kowalczyk; Gaurav Bandi; Deepak Kumar; Simeng Suy; Anatoly Dritschilo; John H Lynch; Sean P Collins Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: R Charles Nichols; Chen Hu; Jean-Paul Bahary; Kenneth L Zeitzer; Luis Souhami; Mark H Leibenhaut; Marvin Rotman; Elizabeth M Gore; Alexander G Balogh; David McGowan; Jeff Michalski; Adam Raben; Shari Rudoler; Christopher U Jones; Howard Sandler Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-08-03