BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dose escalation in order to improve the biochemical control in prostate cancer requires the application of irradiation techniques with high conformality. The dosimetric selectivity of three radiation modalities is compared: high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT), intensity-modulated radiation radiotherapy (IMRT), and helical tomotherapy (HT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten patients with prostate adenocarcinoma treated by a 10-Gy HDR-BT boost after external-beam radiotherapy were investigated. For each patient, HDR-BT, IMRT and HT theoretical treatment plans were realized using common contour sets. A 10-Gy dose was prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV). The PTVs and critical organs' dose-volume histograms obtained were compared using Student's t-test. RESULTS: HDR-BT delivers spontaneously higher mean doses to the PTV with smaller cold spots compared to IMRT and HT. 33% of the rectal volume received a mean HDR-BT dose of 3.86 + or - 0.3 Gy in comparison with a mean IMRT dose of 6.57 + or - 0.68 Gy and a mean HT dose of 5.58 + or - 0.71 Gy (p < 0.0001). HDR-BT also enables to better spare the bladder. The hot spots inside the urethra are greater with HDR-BT. The volume of healthy tissue receiving 10% of the prescribed dose is reduced at least by a factor of 8 with HDR-BT (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: HDR-BT offers better conformality in comparison with HT and IMRT and reduces the volume of healthy tissue receiving a low dose.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dose escalation in order to improve the biochemical control in prostate cancer requires the application of irradiation techniques with high conformality. The dosimetric selectivity of three radiation modalities is compared: high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT), intensity-modulated radiation radiotherapy (IMRT), and helical tomotherapy (HT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten patients with prostate adenocarcinoma treated by a 10-Gy HDR-BT boost after external-beam radiotherapy were investigated. For each patient, HDR-BT, IMRT and HT theoretical treatment plans were realized using common contour sets. A 10-Gy dose was prescribed to the planning target volume (PTV). The PTVs and critical organs' dose-volume histograms obtained were compared using Student's t-test. RESULTS: HDR-BT delivers spontaneously higher mean doses to the PTV with smaller cold spots compared to IMRT and HT. 33% of the rectal volume received a mean HDR-BT dose of 3.86 + or - 0.3 Gy in comparison with a mean IMRT dose of 6.57 + or - 0.68 Gy and a mean HT dose of 5.58 + or - 0.71 Gy (p < 0.0001). HDR-BT also enables to better spare the bladder. The hot spots inside the urethra are greater with HDR-BT. The volume of healthy tissue receiving 10% of the prescribed dose is reduced at least by a factor of 8 with HDR-BT (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: HDR-BT offers better conformality in comparison with HT and IMRT and reduces the volume of healthy tissue receiving a low dose.
Authors: Stephanie T H Peeters; Wilma D Heemsbergen; Peter C M Koper; Wim L J van Putten; Annerie Slot; Michel F H Dielwart; Johannes M G Bonfrer; Luca Incrocci; Joos V Lebesque Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Martin Pursch-Lee; Branka Asadpour; Bernd Gagel; Marc D Piroth; Jens Klotz; Sandra Nussen; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2008-12-24 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Gert J Meijer; Jeroen de Klerk; Karl Bzdusek; Hetty A van den Berg; Rogier Janssen; Michael R Kaus; Patrick Rodrigus; Peter-Paul van der Toorn Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-04-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: M J Zelefsky; Z Fuks; T Wolfe; G J Kutcher; C Burman; C C Ling; E S Venkatraman; S A Leibel Journal: Radiology Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Frederik Wenz; Thomas Martin; Dirk Böhmer; Stefan Martens; Felix Sedlmayer; Manfred Wirth; Kurt Miller; Axel Heidenreich; Mark Schrader; Wolfgang Hinkelbein; Thomas Wiegel Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2010-09-30 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Frank Heinzelmann; Daniela Thorwarth; Ulf Lamprecht; Theodor W Kaulich; Jörg Fuchs; Guido Seitz; Martin Ebinger; Rupert Handgretinger; Michael Bamberg; Martin Weinmann Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2011-10-29 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Nam P Nguyen; Shane P Krafft; Paul Vos; Vincent Vinh-Hung; Misty Ceizyk; Siyoung Jang; Anand Desai; Dave Abraham; Lars Ewell; Christopher Watchman; Russ Hamilton; Beng-Hoey Jo; Ulf Karlsson; Lexie Smith-Raymond Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2011-06-28 Impact factor: 3.621