Yu Kuang1, Lili Wu2, Emily Hirata3, Kyle Miyazaki3, Miles Sato3, Sandi A Kwee4. 1. Department of Medical Physics, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada. 2. Department of Medical Physics, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada; Department of Radiation Oncology, Cancer Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, China. 3. Hamamatsu/Queen's PET Imaging Center and Departments of Radiation Oncology and Oncology Research, The Queen's Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. 4. Hamamatsu/Queen's PET Imaging Center and Departments of Radiation Oncology and Oncology Research, The Queen's Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawaii; John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii. Electronic address: kwee@hawaii.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluated expected tumor control and normal tissue toxicity for prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with and without radiation boosts to an intraprostatically dominant lesion (IDL), defined by (18)F-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty patients with localized prostate cancer underwent (18)F-choline PET/CT before treatment. Two VMAT plans, plan79 Gy and plan100-105 Gy, were compared for each patient. The whole-prostate planning target volume (PTVprostate) prescription was 79 Gy in both plans, but plan100-105 Gy added simultaneous boost doses of 100 Gy and 105 Gy to the IDL, defined by 60% and 70% of maximum prostatic uptake on (18)F-choline PET (IDLsuv60% and IDLsuv70%, respectively, with IDLsuv70% nested inside IDLsuv60% to potentially enhance tumor specificity of the maximum point dose). Plan evaluations included histopathological correspondence, isodose distributions, dose-volume histograms, tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). RESULTS: Planning objectives and dose constraints proved feasible in 30 of 30 cases. Prostate sextant histopathology was available for 28 cases, confirming that IDLsuv60% adequately covered all tumor-bearing prostate sextants in 27 cases and provided partial coverage in 1 case. Plan100-105 Gy had significantly higher TCP than plan79 Gy across all prostate regions for α/β ratios ranging from 1.5 Gy to 10 Gy (P<.001 for each case). There were no significant differences in bladder and femoral head NTCP between plans and slightly lower rectal NTCP (endpoint: grade ≥ 2 late toxicity or rectal bleeding) was found for plan100-105 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: VMAT can potentially increase the likelihood of tumor control in primary prostate cancer while observing normal tissue tolerances through simultaneous delivery of a steep radiation boost to a (18)F-choline PET-defined IDL.
PURPOSE: This study evaluated expected tumor control and normal tissue toxicity for prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with and without radiation boosts to an intraprostatically dominant lesion (IDL), defined by (18)F-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty patients with localized prostate cancer underwent (18)F-choline PET/CT before treatment. Two VMAT plans, plan79 Gy and plan100-105 Gy, were compared for each patient. The whole-prostate planning target volume (PTVprostate) prescription was 79 Gy in both plans, but plan100-105 Gy added simultaneous boost doses of 100 Gy and 105 Gy to the IDL, defined by 60% and 70% of maximum prostatic uptake on (18)F-choline PET (IDLsuv60% and IDLsuv70%, respectively, with IDLsuv70% nested inside IDLsuv60% to potentially enhance tumor specificity of the maximum point dose). Plan evaluations included histopathological correspondence, isodose distributions, dose-volume histograms, tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). RESULTS: Planning objectives and dose constraints proved feasible in 30 of 30 cases. Prostate sextant histopathology was available for 28 cases, confirming that IDLsuv60% adequately covered all tumor-bearing prostate sextants in 27 cases and provided partial coverage in 1 case. Plan100-105 Gy had significantly higher TCP than plan79 Gy across all prostate regions for α/β ratios ranging from 1.5 Gy to 10 Gy (P<.001 for each case). There were no significant differences in bladder and femoral head NTCP between plans and slightly lower rectal NTCP (endpoint: grade ≥ 2 late toxicity or rectal bleeding) was found for plan100-105 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: VMAT can potentially increase the likelihood of tumor control in primary prostate cancer while observing normal tissue tolerances through simultaneous delivery of a steep radiation boost to a (18)F-choline PET-defined IDL.
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Charbel Attieh; Marc D Piroth; Richard Holy; Sandra Nussen; Jens Klotz; Robert Hawickhorst; Wolfgang Schäfer; Michael J Eble Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Patrick A Kupelian; Jay Ciezki; Chandana A Reddy; Eric A Klein; Arul Mahadevan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sandi A Kwee; Gregory P Thibault; Richard S Stack; Marc N Coel; Bungo Furusato; Isabell A Sesterhenn Journal: Mol Imaging Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Rolando M D'Angelillo; Rosa Sciuto; Sara Ramella; Rocco Papalia; Barbara A Jereczek-Fossa; Luca E Trodella; Michele Fiore; Michele Gallucci; Carlo L Maini; Lucio Trodella Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-07-29 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Basir Tareen; Guilherme Godoy; Alex Sankin; Steve Temkin; Herbert Lepor; Samir S Taneja Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-02-03 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Simona Malaspina; Ugo De Giorgi; Jukka Kemppainen; Angelo Del Sole; Giovanni Paganelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Linda J Bell; Thomas Eade; Andrew Kneebone; George Hruby; Florencia Alfieri; Regina Bromley; Kylie Grimberg; Mardi Barnes; Jeremy T Booth Journal: J Med Radiat Sci Date: 2017-03-06
Authors: Jesper Pedersen; Oscar Casares-Magaz; Jørgen B B Petersen; Jarle Rørvik; Lise Bentzen; Andreas G Andersen; Ludvig P Muren Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-07-18
Authors: Constantinos Zamboglou; Benedikt Thomann; Khodor Koubar; Peter Bronsert; Tobias Krauss; Hans C Rischke; Ilias Sachpazidis; Vanessa Drendel; Nasr Salman; Kathrin Reichel; Cordula A Jilg; Martin Werner; Philipp T Meyer; Michael Bock; Dimos Baltas; Anca L Grosu Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Simon K B Spohn; Ilias Sachpazidis; Rolf Wiehle; Benedikt Thomann; August Sigle; Peter Bronsert; Juri Ruf; Matthias Benndorf; Nils H Nicolay; Tanja Sprave; Anca L Grosu; Dimos Baltas; Constantinos Zamboglou Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 6.244