PURPOSE: To compare helical tomotherapy (HT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) on early stage prostate cancer treatments delivered with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in moderate hypofractionation. MATERIAL/ METHODS: Eight patients treated with HT were replanned with two-field IMPT (2fIMPT) and five-field IMPT (5fIMPT), using a small pencil beam size (3 mm sigma). The prescribed dose was 74.3 Gy in 28 fractions on PTV1 (prostate) and PTV2 (proximal seminal vesicles), 65.5 Gy on PTV3 (distal seminal vesicles) and on the overlap between rectum and PTVs. RESULTS: IMPT and HT achieved similar target coverage and dose homogeneity, with 5fIMPT providing the best results. The conformity indexes of IMPT were significantly lower for PTV1+2 and PTV3. Above 65 Gy, HT and IMPT were equivalent in the rectum, while IMPT spared the bladder and the penile bulb from 0 to 70 Gy. From 0 up to 60 Gy, IMPT dosimetric values were (much) lower for all OARs except the femur heads, where HT was better than 2fIMPT in the 25-35 Gy dose range. OARs mean doses were typically reduced by 30-50% by IMPT. NTCPs for the rectum were within 1% between the two techniques, except when the endpoint was stool frequency, where IMPT showed a small (though statistically significant) benefit. CONCLUSIONS: HT and IMPT produce similar dose distributions in the target volume. The current knowledge on dose-effect relations does not allow to quantify the clinical impact of the large sparing of IMPT at medium-to-low doses. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: To compare helical tomotherapy (HT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) on early stage prostate cancer treatments delivered with simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) in moderate hypofractionation. MATERIAL/ METHODS: Eight patients treated with HT were replanned with two-field IMPT (2fIMPT) and five-field IMPT (5fIMPT), using a small pencil beam size (3 mm sigma). The prescribed dose was 74.3 Gy in 28 fractions on PTV1 (prostate) and PTV2 (proximal seminal vesicles), 65.5 Gy on PTV3 (distal seminal vesicles) and on the overlap between rectum and PTVs. RESULTS: IMPT and HT achieved similar target coverage and dose homogeneity, with 5fIMPT providing the best results. The conformity indexes of IMPT were significantly lower for PTV1+2 and PTV3. Above 65 Gy, HT and IMPT were equivalent in the rectum, while IMPT spared the bladder and the penile bulb from 0 to 70 Gy. From 0 up to 60 Gy, IMPT dosimetric values were (much) lower for all OARs except the femur heads, where HT was better than 2fIMPT in the 25-35 Gy dose range. OARs mean doses were typically reduced by 30-50% by IMPT. NTCPs for the rectum were within 1% between the two techniques, except when the endpoint was stool frequency, where IMPT showed a small (though statistically significant) benefit. CONCLUSIONS:HT and IMPT produce similar dose distributions in the target volume. The current knowledge on dose-effect relations does not allow to quantify the clinical impact of the large sparing of IMPT at medium-to-low doses. Copyright Â
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Amy S Harrison; Edouard J Trabulsi; Leonard G Gomella; Timothy N Showalter; Mark D Hurwitz; Adam P Dicker; Robert B Den Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Phillip J Gray; Jonathan J Paly; Beow Y Yeap; Martin G Sanda; Howard M Sandler; Jeff M Michalski; James A Talcott; John J Coen; Daniel A Hamstra; William U Shipley; Stephen M Hahn; Anthony L Zietman; Justin E Bekelman; Jason A Efstathiou Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-02-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Charles B Simone; David Ly; Tu D Dan; John Ondos; Holly Ning; Arnaud Belard; John O'Connell; Robert W Miller; Nicole L Simone Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-06-12 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Thomas J Pugh; Richard A Amos; Sandra John Baptiste; Seungtaek Choi; Quyhn Nhu Nguyen; X Ronald Zhu; Matthew B Palmer; Andrew K Lee Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 1.482
Authors: Thomas J Pugh; Mark F Munsell; Seungtaek Choi; Quyhn Nhu Nguyen; Benson Mathai; X Ron Zhu; Narayan Sahoo; Michael Gillin; Jennifer L Johnson; Richard A Amos; Lei Dong; Usama Mahmood; Deborah A Kuban; Steven J Frank; Karen E Hoffman; Sean E McGuire; Andrew K Lee Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Yihang Xu; Nellie Brovold; Jonathan Cyriac; Elizabeth Bossart; Kyle Padgett; Michael Butkus; Tejan Diwanj; Adam King; Alan Dal Pra; Matt Abramowitz; Alan Pollack; Nesrin Dogan Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2021-06-15