OBJECTIVE: Compared with standard, whole-gland (WG) therapies for prostate cancer, focal approaches may provide equivalent oncologic outcomes with fewer adverse effects. The purpose of this study was to compare organ-at-risk (OAR) dosimetry between hemigland (HG) and WG stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans. METHODS: Volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy-based SBRT plans were designed to treat the left HG, right HG and WG in eight patients, using five fractions of 8 Gy. OARs of interest included the contralateral HG, rectum, urinary bladder, urethra, penile bulb and contralateral neurovascular bundle. RESULTS: Rectal V80% (the percentage of a normal structure receiving a dose of 80%) and V90% were significantly lower with HG plans than with WG plans (median values of 4.4 vs 2.5 cm(3) and 2.1 vs 1.1 cm(3), respectively, p < 0.05 by Student's t-test). Bladder V50% was also reduced significantly in HG plans (32.3 vs 17.4 cm(3), p < 0.05), with a trend towards reduction of V100% (3.4 vs 1.3 cm(3), p = 0.09). Urethral maximum dose and mean doses to the penile bulb and contralateral neurovascular bundle were also reduced significantly (42.0 vs 39.7 Gy, p < 0.00001; 13.3 vs 9.2 Gy, p < 0.05; and 40.2 vs 19.3 Gy, p < 0.00001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Targeting an HG volume rather than a WG volume when delivering SBRT can offer statistically significant reductions for all OARs. Given the large magnitude of the reduction in dose to these OARs, it is anticipated that HG SBRT could offer a superior toxicity profile when compared with WG SBRT. This is likely to be most relevant in the context of salvaging a local failure after radiation therapy. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The dosimetric feasibility of HG SBRT is demonstrated. When compared with WG SBRT plans, the HG plans demonstrate statistically significant and large magnitude reduction in doses to the rectum, bladder, urethra, penile bulb and contralateral neurovascular bundle, suggesting the possibility of improved toxicity outcomes with HG SBRT. This is likely to be most relevant in the context of salvaging a local failure after radiation therapy.
OBJECTIVE: Compared with standard, whole-gland (WG) therapies for prostate cancer, focal approaches may provide equivalent oncologic outcomes with fewer adverse effects. The purpose of this study was to compare organ-at-risk (OAR) dosimetry between hemigland (HG) and WG stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans. METHODS: Volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy-based SBRT plans were designed to treat the left HG, right HG and WG in eight patients, using five fractions of 8 Gy. OARs of interest included the contralateral HG, rectum, urinary bladder, urethra, penile bulb and contralateral neurovascular bundle. RESULTS: Rectal V80% (the percentage of a normal structure receiving a dose of 80%) and V90% were significantly lower with HG plans than with WG plans (median values of 4.4 vs 2.5 cm(3) and 2.1 vs 1.1 cm(3), respectively, p < 0.05 by Student's t-test). Bladder V50% was also reduced significantly in HG plans (32.3 vs 17.4 cm(3), p < 0.05), with a trend towards reduction of V100% (3.4 vs 1.3 cm(3), p = 0.09). Urethral maximum dose and mean doses to the penile bulb and contralateral neurovascular bundle were also reduced significantly (42.0 vs 39.7 Gy, p < 0.00001; 13.3 vs 9.2 Gy, p < 0.05; and 40.2 vs 19.3 Gy, p < 0.00001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Targeting an HG volume rather than a WG volume when delivering SBRT can offer statistically significant reductions for all OARs. Given the large magnitude of the reduction in dose to these OARs, it is anticipated that HG SBRT could offer a superior toxicity profile when compared with WG SBRT. This is likely to be most relevant in the context of salvaging a local failure after radiation therapy. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The dosimetric feasibility of HG SBRT is demonstrated. When compared with WG SBRT plans, the HG plans demonstrate statistically significant and large magnitude reduction in doses to the rectum, bladder, urethra, penile bulb and contralateral neurovascular bundle, suggesting the possibility of improved toxicity outcomes with HG SBRT. This is likely to be most relevant in the context of salvaging a local failure after radiation therapy.
Authors: D Jeffrey Demanes; Alvaro A Martinez; Michel Ghilezan; Dennis R Hill; Lionel Schour; David Brandt; Gary Gustafson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Patrick Kupelian; Niraj H Mehta; Chris King; Michael Steinberg; Steven E Finkelstein; Eduardo Fernandez Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-10-18
Authors: Matthew J Resnick; Daniel A Barocas; Alicia K Morgans; Sharon E Phillips; Vivien W Chen; Matthew R Cooperberg; Michael Goodman; Sheldon Greenfield; Ann S Hamilton; Karen E Hoffman; Sherri H Kaplan; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette M Stroup; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Tatsuki Koyama; David F Penson Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: W Tristram Arscott; Leonard N Chen; Nathan Wilson; Aditi Bhagat; Joy S Kim; Rudy A Moures; Thomas M Yung; Siyuan Lei; Brian T Collins; Keith Kowalczyk; Simeng Suy; Anatoly Dritschilo; John H Lynch; Sean P Collins Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-07-24 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Mark E Hwang; Mark Mayeda; Hiram Shaish; Carl D Elliston; Catherine S Spina; Sven Wenske; Israel Deutsch Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 3.039