PURPOSE: Image guided adaptive radiation therapy offers individualized solutions to improve target coverage and reduce normal tissue irradiation, allowing the opportunity to increase the radiation tumor dose and spare normal bladder tissue. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A library of 3 intensity modulated radiation therapy plans were created (small, medium, and large) from planning computed tomography (CT) scans performed at 30 and 60 minutes; treating the whole bladder to 52 Gy and the tumor to 70 Gy in 32 fractions. A "plan of the day" approach was used for treatment delivery. A post-treatment cone beam CT (CBCT) scan was acquired weekly to assess intrafraction filling and coverage. RESULTS: A total of 18 patients completed treatment to 70 Gy. The plan and treatment for 1 patient was to 68 Gy. Also, 1 patient's plan was to 70 Gy but the patient was treated to a total dose of 65.6 Gy because dose-limiting toxicity occurred before dose escalation. A total of 734 CBCT scans were evaluated. Small, medium, and large plans were used in 36%, 48%, and 16% of cases, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation rate of intrafraction filling at the start of treatment (ie, week 1) was 4.0 ± 4.8 mL/min (range 0.1-19.4) and at end of radiation therapy (ie, week 5 or 6) was 1.1 ± 1.6 mL/min (range 0.01-7.5; P=.002). The mean D98 (dose received by 98% volume) of the tumor boost and bladder as assessed on the post-treatment CBCT scan was 97.07% ± 2.10% (range 89.0%-104%) and 99.97% ± 2.62% (range 96.4%-112.0%). At a median follow-up period of 19 months (range 4-33), no muscle-invasive recurrences had developed. Two patients experienced late toxicity (both grade 3 cystitis) at 5.3 months (now resolved) and 18 months after radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Image guided adaptive radiation therapy using intensity modulated radiation therapy to deliver a simultaneous integrated tumor boost to 70 Gy is feasible, with acceptable toxicity, and will be evaluated in a randomized trial.
PURPOSE: Image guided adaptive radiation therapy offers individualized solutions to improve target coverage and reduce normal tissue irradiation, allowing the opportunity to increase the radiation tumor dose and spare normal bladder tissue. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A library of 3 intensity modulated radiation therapy plans were created (small, medium, and large) from planning computed tomography (CT) scans performed at 30 and 60 minutes; treating the whole bladder to 52 Gy and the tumor to 70 Gy in 32 fractions. A "plan of the day" approach was used for treatment delivery. A post-treatment cone beam CT (CBCT) scan was acquired weekly to assess intrafraction filling and coverage. RESULTS: A total of 18 patients completed treatment to 70 Gy. The plan and treatment for 1 patient was to 68 Gy. Also, 1 patient's plan was to 70 Gy but the patient was treated to a total dose of 65.6 Gy because dose-limiting toxicity occurred before dose escalation. A total of 734 CBCT scans were evaluated. Small, medium, and large plans were used in 36%, 48%, and 16% of cases, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation rate of intrafraction filling at the start of treatment (ie, week 1) was 4.0 ± 4.8 mL/min (range 0.1-19.4) and at end of radiation therapy (ie, week 5 or 6) was 1.1 ± 1.6 mL/min (range 0.01-7.5; P=.002). The mean D98 (dose received by 98% volume) of the tumor boost and bladder as assessed on the post-treatment CBCT scan was 97.07% ± 2.10% (range 89.0%-104%) and 99.97% ± 2.62% (range 96.4%-112.0%). At a median follow-up period of 19 months (range 4-33), no muscle-invasive recurrences had developed. Two patients experienced late toxicity (both grade 3 cystitis) at 5.3 months (now resolved) and 18 months after radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Image guided adaptive radiation therapy using intensity modulated radiation therapy to deliver a simultaneous integrated tumor boost to 70 Gy is feasible, with acceptable toxicity, and will be evaluated in a randomized trial.
Authors: Anil Kapoor; Tamim Niazi; Krista Noonan; Ricardo A Rendon; Nimira Alimohamed; Wassim Kassouf; Alejandro Berlin; William Chu; Christian Kollmannsberger; Alan I So Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 2.052
Authors: Shaista Hafeez; Fiona McDonald; Susan Lalondrelle; Helen McNair; Karole Warren-Oseni; Kelly Jones; Victoria Harris; Helen Taylor; Vincent Khoo; Karen Thomas; Vibeke Hansen; David Dearnaley; Alan Horwich; Robert Huddart Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Sang Jun Byun; Won Park; Kwan Ho Cho; Jaeho Cho; Ah Ram Chang; Ki Mun Kang; Jin Ho Kim; Jin Hee Kim Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Robert A Huddart; Emma Hall; Rebecca Lewis; Nuria Porta; Malcolm Crundwell; Peter J Jenkins; Christine Rawlings; Jean Tremlett; Leila Campani; Carey Hendron; Syed A Hussain; Nicholas D James Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 20.096