OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the feasibility of an 8-Gy focal radiation boost to a dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL), identified using multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), and to assess the potential outcome compared with a uniform 74-Gy prostate dose. METHODS: The DIL location was predicted in 23 patients using a histopathologically verified model combining diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging, T2 maps and three-dimensional MR spectroscopic imaging. The DIL defined prior to neoadjuvant hormone downregulation was firstly registered to MRI-acquired post-hormone therapy and subsequently to CT radiotherapy scans. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment was planned for an 8-Gy focal boost with 74-Gy dose to the remaining prostate. Areas under the dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for prostate, bladder and rectum, the tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) were compared with those of the uniform 74-Gy IMRT plan. RESULTS: Deliverable IMRT plans were feasible for all patients with identifiable DILs (20/23). Areas under the DVHs were increased for the prostate (75.1 ± 0.6 vs 72.7 ± 0.3 Gy; p < 0.001) and decreased for the rectum (38.2 ± 2.5 vs 43.5 ± 2.5 Gy; p < 0.001) and the bladder (29.1 ± 9.0 vs 36.9 ± 9.3 Gy; p < 0.001) for the boosted plan. The prostate TCP was increased (80.1 ± 1.3 vs 75.3 ± 0.9 Gy; p < 0.001) and rectal NTCP lowered (3.84 ± 3.65 vs 9.70 ± 5.68 Gy; p = 0.04) in the boosted plan. The bladder NTCP was negligible for both plans. CONCLUSION: Delivery of a focal boost to an mpMRI-defined DIL is feasible, and significant increases in TCP and therapeutic ratio were found. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The delivery of a focal boost to an mpMRI-defined DIL demonstrates statistically significant increases in TCP and therapeutic ratio.
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the feasibility of an 8-Gy focal radiation boost to a dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL), identified using multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), and to assess the potential outcome compared with a uniform 74-Gy prostate dose. METHODS: The DIL location was predicted in 23 patients using a histopathologically verified model combining diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging, T2 maps and three-dimensional MR spectroscopic imaging. The DIL defined prior to neoadjuvant hormone downregulation was firstly registered to MRI-acquired post-hormone therapy and subsequently to CT radiotherapy scans. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment was planned for an 8-Gy focal boost with 74-Gy dose to the remaining prostate. Areas under the dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for prostate, bladder and rectum, the tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probabilities (NTCPs) were compared with those of the uniform 74-Gy IMRT plan. RESULTS: Deliverable IMRT plans were feasible for all patients with identifiable DILs (20/23). Areas under the DVHs were increased for the prostate (75.1 ± 0.6 vs 72.7 ± 0.3 Gy; p < 0.001) and decreased for the rectum (38.2 ± 2.5 vs 43.5 ± 2.5 Gy; p < 0.001) and the bladder (29.1 ± 9.0 vs 36.9 ± 9.3 Gy; p < 0.001) for the boosted plan. The prostate TCP was increased (80.1 ± 1.3 vs 75.3 ± 0.9 Gy; p < 0.001) and rectal NTCP lowered (3.84 ± 3.65 vs 9.70 ± 5.68 Gy; p = 0.04) in the boosted plan. The bladder NTCP was negligible for both plans. CONCLUSION: Delivery of a focal boost to an mpMRI-defined DIL is feasible, and significant increases in TCP and therapeutic ratio were found. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The delivery of a focal boost to an mpMRI-defined DIL demonstrates statistically significant increases in TCP and therapeutic ratio.
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: James A d'Arcy; David J Collins; Anwar R Padhani; Simon Walker-Samuel; John Suckling; Martin O Leach Journal: Radiographics Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.333
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: Sarah L Gulliford; Mike Partridge; Matthew R Sydes; Steve Webb; Philip M Evans; David P Dearnaley Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-11-25 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: M Rex Cheung; Susan L Tucker; Lei Dong; Renaud de Crevoisier; Andrew K Lee; Steven Frank; Rajat J Kudchadker; Howard Thames; Radhe Mohan; Deborah Kuban Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-01-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alan Pollack; Gunar K Zagars; George Starkschall; John A Antolak; J Jack Lee; Eugene Huang; Andrew C von Eschenbach; Deborah A Kuban; Isaac Rosen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Anurag K Singh; Peter Guion; Nancy Sears-Crouse; Karen Ullman; Sharon Smith; Paul S Albert; Gabor Fichtinger; Peter L Choyke; Sheng Xu; Jochen Kruecker; Bradford J Wood; Axel Krieger; Holly Ning Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2007-09-18 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Michael H Schild; Steven E Schild; William W Wong; Sujay A Vora; Alvin C Silva; Annelise M Silva; Thomas B Daniels; Sameer R Keole Journal: OMICS J Radiol Date: 2014-12
Authors: Andrew McPartlin; Lucy Kershaw; Alan McWilliam; Marcus Ben Taylor; Clare Hodgson; Marcel van Herk; Ananya Choudhury Journal: Ther Adv Urol Date: 2018-10-11
Authors: Matthew T Studenski; Yanisley Valenciaga; Matthew C Abramowitz; Radka Stoyanova; Elizabeth Bossart; Nesrin Dogan; Alan Pollack Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-05-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Maria A Schmidt; Rafal Panek; Ruth Colgan; Julie Hughes; Aslam Sohaib; Frank Saran; Julia Murray; Jason Bernard; Patrick Revell; Mathias Nittka; Martin O Leach; Vibeke N Hansen Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2016-05-21 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Florian Sterzing; Clemens Kratochwil; Hannah Fiedler; Sonja Katayama; Gregor Habl; Klaus Kopka; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Jürgen Debus; Uwe Haberkorn; Frederik L Giesel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 9.236