OBJECTIVE: In volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), dose coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) becomes challenging when the sparing of rectum, bladder and urethra is strictly pursued. Our current 35-Gy-in-five-fraction plans only assure 33.2 Gy to ≥95% PTV ([Formula: see text] ≥ 95%). Looking for an improved [Formula: see text], increased near-maximum target dose (D2%) and prostate-rectum spacer insertion were tested. METHODS: For 11 patients, two VMAT plans, with D2% ≤ 37.5 Gy (Hom) or D2% ≤ 40.2 Gy (Het), on each of two CT studies, before or after spacer insertion, were computed. All plans assured [Formula: see text] ≥95%, and <1 cm(3) of rectum, bladder and urethra receiving ≥35 Gy. By hypothesis testing, several dose-volume metrics for target coverage and rectal sparing were compared across the four groups of plans. The impact of spacer insertion on the fractions of rectum receiving more than 18, 28 and 32 Gy ([Formula: see text]) was further tested by linear correlation analysis. RESULTS: By hypothesis testing, the increased D2% was associated with improvements in target coverage, whereas spacer insertion was associated with improvements in both target coverage and rectal [Formula: see text]. By linear correlation analysis, spacer insertion was related to the reductions in rectal [Formula: see text] for X ≥ 28 Gy. CONCLUSION: A slightly increased D2% or the use of spacer insertion was each able to improve [Formula: see text]. Their combined use assured [Formula: see text] ≥ 98% to all our patients. Spacer insertion was further causative for improvements in rectal sparing. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: For VMAT plans in prostate SBRT, the distinct dosimetric usefulness of increased D2% and of the use of spacer insertion were validated in terms of target coverage and rectal sparing.
OBJECTIVE: In volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), dose coverage of the planning target volume (PTV) becomes challenging when the sparing of rectum, bladder and urethra is strictly pursued. Our current 35-Gy-in-five-fraction plans only assure 33.2 Gy to ≥95% PTV ([Formula: see text] ≥ 95%). Looking for an improved [Formula: see text], increased near-maximum target dose (D2%) and prostate-rectum spacer insertion were tested. METHODS: For 11 patients, two VMAT plans, with D2% ≤ 37.5 Gy (Hom) or D2% ≤ 40.2 Gy (Het), on each of two CT studies, before or after spacer insertion, were computed. All plans assured [Formula: see text] ≥95%, and <1 cm(3) of rectum, bladder and urethra receiving ≥35 Gy. By hypothesis testing, several dose-volume metrics for target coverage and rectal sparing were compared across the four groups of plans. The impact of spacer insertion on the fractions of rectum receiving more than 18, 28 and 32 Gy ([Formula: see text]) was further tested by linear correlation analysis. RESULTS: By hypothesis testing, the increased D2% was associated with improvements in target coverage, whereas spacer insertion was associated with improvements in both target coverage and rectal [Formula: see text]. By linear correlation analysis, spacer insertion was related to the reductions in rectal [Formula: see text] for X ≥ 28 Gy. CONCLUSION: A slightly increased D2% or the use of spacer insertion was each able to improve [Formula: see text]. Their combined use assured [Formula: see text] ≥ 98% to all our patients. Spacer insertion was further causative for improvements in rectal sparing. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: For VMAT plans in prostate SBRT, the distinct dosimetric usefulness of increased D2% and of the use of spacer insertion were validated in terms of target coverage and rectal sparing.
Authors: Michael Pinkawa; Nuria Escobar Corral; Mariana Caffaro; Marc D Piroth; Richard Holy; Victoria Djukic; Gundula Otto; Felix Schoth; Michael J Eble Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: D W Nathan Kim; L Chinsoo Cho; Christopher Straka; Alana Christie; Yair Lotan; David Pistenmaa; Brian D Kavanagh; Akash Nanda; Patrick Kueplian; Jeffrey Brindle; Susan Cooley; Alida Perkins; David Raben; Xian-Jin Xie; Robert D Timmerman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Danny Y Song; Klaus K Herfarth; Matthias Uhl; Michael J Eble; Michael Pinkawa; Baukelien van Triest; Robin Kalisvaart; Damien C Weber; Raymond Miralbell; Theodore L Deweese; Eric C Ford Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 7.038
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: 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: Ima Paydar; Abigail Pepin; Robyn A Cyr; Joseph King; Thomas M Yung; Elizabeth G Bullock; Siyuan Lei; Andrew Satinsky; K William Harter; Simeng Suy; Anatoly Dritschilo; John H Lynch; Thomas P Kole; Sean P Collins Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Angèle Dubouloz; Michel Rouzaud; Lev Tsvang; Wilko Verbakel; Mikko Björkqvist; Nadine Linthout; Joana Lencart; Juan María Pérez-Moreno; Zeynep Ozen; Lluís Escude; Thomas Zilli; Raymond Miralbell Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 3.481