V A Macias1, M L Blanco, L A Perez-Romasanta. 1. Radiation Oncology, Salamanca University Hospital, Paseo de San Vicente, 182, 37007, Salamanca, Spain, victormaciash@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Single-institution single-arm prospective study. Endpoint: To assess whether there are more than 5 % of men having grade 3 GU or any grade 3 GI acute toxicity during stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer using helical tomotherapy. METHODS: Since May 2012, 17 prostate cancer patients were treated with helical tomotherapy. The exclusion criteria used are the following: Gleason score ≥8, PSA >20 ng/ml, cT3b-4, IPSS ≥20 and history of acute urinary retention. CTV included the prostate gland and 1 cm of seminal vesicles in the low-risk group (LR) or the seminal vesicles completely in the intermediate (IR) and high-risk (HR) NCCN groups. CTV margins ranged from 2 to 8 mm, while PTV margins were 2 to 9 mm. Patients received eight fractions of 5.48 Gy (LR) or 5.65 Gy (IR, HR) on alternate days. Total equivalent doses at 2 Gy per fraction are 87.4 for LR and 92.3 Gy for IR-HR using an α/β value of 1.5. Correspondent figures for a α/β of 3 are 74.3 Gy and 78.2 Gy, respectively. Megavoltage CT (MVCT) for on-line correction was taken before every fraction. RESULTS: The patient distribution by risk group is 29, 47 and 24 % for LR, IR and HR, respectively. 82 % received neoadjuvant-concomitant hormonal therapy. Acute GU toxicity grade 1, 2 and 3 was found in 70, 6 and 0 % of men. GI toxicity was observed in 50, 0 and 0. After 136 MVCT, the standard deviation of the mean individual corrections in the anterior-posterior direction was 2.5 mm. CONCLUSION: SBRT for prostate cancer using helical tomotherapy is feasible. Initial results show an early toxicity profile no worse than SBRT delivered with robotic radiosurgery or conventionally fractionated radiotherapy.
PURPOSE: Single-institution single-arm prospective study. Endpoint: To assess whether there are more than 5 % of men having grade 3 GU or any grade 3 GI acute toxicity during stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer using helical tomotherapy. METHODS: Since May 2012, 17 prostate cancerpatients were treated with helical tomotherapy. The exclusion criteria used are the following: Gleason score ≥8, PSA >20 ng/ml, cT3b-4, IPSS ≥20 and history of acute urinary retention. CTV included the prostate gland and 1 cm of seminal vesicles in the low-risk group (LR) or the seminal vesicles completely in the intermediate (IR) and high-risk (HR) NCCN groups. CTV margins ranged from 2 to 8 mm, while PTV margins were 2 to 9 mm. Patients received eight fractions of 5.48 Gy (LR) or 5.65 Gy (IR, HR) on alternate days. Total equivalent doses at 2 Gy per fraction are 87.4 for LR and 92.3 Gy for IR-HR using an α/β value of 1.5. Correspondent figures for a α/β of 3 are 74.3 Gy and 78.2 Gy, respectively. Megavoltage CT (MVCT) for on-line correction was taken before every fraction. RESULTS: The patient distribution by risk group is 29, 47 and 24 % for LR, IR and HR, respectively. 82 % received neoadjuvant-concomitant hormonal therapy. Acute GU toxicity grade 1, 2 and 3 was found in 70, 6 and 0 % of men. GI toxicity was observed in 50, 0 and 0. After 136 MVCT, the standard deviation of the mean individual corrections in the anterior-posterior direction was 2.5 mm. CONCLUSION: SBRT for prostate cancer using helical tomotherapy is feasible. Initial results show an early toxicity profile no worse than SBRT delivered with robotic radiosurgery or conventionally fractionated radiotherapy.
Authors: David Dearnaley; Isabel Syndikus; Georges Sumo; Margaret Bidmead; David Bloomfield; Catharine Clark; Annie Gao; Shama Hassan; Alan Horwich; Robert Huddart; Vincent Khoo; Peter Kirkbride; Helen Mayles; Philip Mayles; Olivia Naismith; Chris Parker; Helen Patterson; Martin Russell; Christopher Scrase; Chris South; John Staffurth; Emma Hall Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Thomas P Boike; Yair Lotan; L Chinsoo Cho; Jeffrey Brindle; Paul DeRose; Xian-Jin Xie; Jingsheng Yan; Ryan Foster; David Pistenmaa; Alida Perkins; Susan Cooley; Robert Timmerman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Berit L Madsen; R Alex Hsi; Huong T Pham; Jack F Fowler; Laura Esagui; John Corman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-03-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christopher R King; James D Brooks; Harcharan Gill; Joseph C Presti Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-02-06 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: C I Tang; D A Loblaw; P Cheung; L Holden; G Morton; P S Basran; R Tirona; M Cardoso; G Pang; S Gardner; A Cesta Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2008-10-05 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Christopher R King; James D Brooks; Harcharan Gill; Todd Pawlicki; Cristian Cotrutz; Joseph C Presti Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2008-08-26 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Patrick A Kupelian; Twyla R Willoughby; Chandana A Reddy; Eric A Klein; Arul Mahadevan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-06-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Leonard N Chen; Simeng Suy; Sunghae Uhm; Eric K Oermann; Andrew W Ju; Viola Chen; Heather N Hanscom; Sarah Laing; Joy S Kim; Siyuan Lei; Gerald P Batipps; Keith Kowalczyk; Gaurav Bandi; John Pahira; Kevin G McGeagh; Brian T Collins; Pranay Krishnan; Nancy A Dawson; Kathryn L Taylor; Anatoly Dritschilo; John H Lynch; Sean P Collins Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Hyo Chun Lee; Sung Hwan Kim; Young Jin Suh; Mi Joo Chung; Dae Gyu Kang; Hyun Joo Choi; Jong Hoon Lee Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Damodar Pokhrel; Tanner Tackett; Joseph Stephen; Justin Visak; Falguni Amin-Zimmerman; Andrew McGregor; Stephen E Strup; William St Clair Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-12-19 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Vladimir Avkshtol; Yanqun Dong; Shelly B Hayes; Mark A Hallman; Robert A Price; Mark L Sobczak; Eric M Horwitz; Nicholas G Zaorsky Journal: Res Rep Urol Date: 2016-08-18