Simon Buus1, Susanne Rylander2, Steffen Hokland2, Christian Skou Søndergaard2, Erik Morre Pedersen3, Kari Tanderup4, Lise Bentzen2. 1. Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: simbuu@rm.dk. 2. Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 3. Department of Radiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 4. Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate introduction of MRI-based high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRBT), including procedure times, dose-volume parameters, and perioperative morbidity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Study included 42 high-risk prostate cancer patients enrolled in a clinical protocol, offering external beam radiotherapy + two HDRBT 8.5 Gy boosts. Time was recorded for initiation of anesthesia (A), fixation of needle implant (B), end of MR imaging (C), plan approval (D), and end of HDRBT delivery (E). We defined time A-E as total procedure time, A-B as operating room time, B-C as MRI procedure time, C-D as treatment planning time, and D to E as treatment delivery time. Dose-volume parameters were retrieved from the dose planning system. Results from the first 21 patients were compared with the last 21 patients. RESULTS: Total procedure time, operating room time, MRI procedure time, and treatment planning time decreased significantly from average 7.6 to 5.3 hours (p < 0.01), 3.6 to 2.4 hours (p < 0.01), 1.6 to 0.8 hours (p < 0.01), and 2.0 to 1.3 hours (p < 0.01), respectively. HDRBT delivery time remained unchanged at 0.5 hours. Clinical target volume prostate+3mmD90 fulfilled planning aim in 92% of procedures and increased significantly from average 8.3 to 9.0 Gy (p < 0.01). Urethral D0.1 cm(3) and rectal D2 cm(3) fulfilled planning aim in 78% and 95% of procedures, respectively, and did not change significantly. Hematuria occurred in (95%), hematoma (80%), moderate to strong pain (35%), and urinary retention (5%) of procedures. CONCLUSIONS: After introduction of MRI-based HDRBT, procedure times were significantly reduced. D90 Clinical target volumeprostate+3mm fulfilled constraints in most patients and improved over time, but not at expense of an increased urethral or rectal dose.
PURPOSE: To evaluate introduction of MRI-based high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRBT), including procedure times, dose-volume parameters, and perioperative morbidity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Study included 42 high-risk prostate cancerpatients enrolled in a clinical protocol, offering external beam radiotherapy + two HDRBT 8.5 Gy boosts. Time was recorded for initiation of anesthesia (A), fixation of needle implant (B), end of MR imaging (C), plan approval (D), and end of HDRBT delivery (E). We defined time A-E as total procedure time, A-B as operating room time, B-C as MRI procedure time, C-D as treatment planning time, and D to E as treatment delivery time. Dose-volume parameters were retrieved from the dose planning system. Results from the first 21 patients were compared with the last 21 patients. RESULTS: Total procedure time, operating room time, MRI procedure time, and treatment planning time decreased significantly from average 7.6 to 5.3 hours (p < 0.01), 3.6 to 2.4 hours (p < 0.01), 1.6 to 0.8 hours (p < 0.01), and 2.0 to 1.3 hours (p < 0.01), respectively. HDRBT delivery time remained unchanged at 0.5 hours. Clinical target volume prostate+3mmD90 fulfilled planning aim in 92% of procedures and increased significantly from average 8.3 to 9.0 Gy (p < 0.01). Urethral D0.1 cm(3) and rectal D2 cm(3) fulfilled planning aim in 78% and 95% of procedures, respectively, and did not change significantly. Hematuria occurred in (95%), hematoma (80%), moderate to strong pain (35%), and urinary retention (5%) of procedures. CONCLUSIONS: After introduction of MRI-based HDRBT, procedure times were significantly reduced. D90 Clinical target volumeprostate+3mm fulfilled constraints in most patients and improved over time, but not at expense of an increased urethral or rectal dose.
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Brian J Davis; Paul L Nguyen; Timothy N Showalter; Peter J Hoskin; Yasuo Yoshioka; Gerard C Morton; Eric M Horwitz Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Xianjin Dai; Yang Lei; Yupei Zhang; Richard L J Qiu; Tonghe Wang; Sean A Dresser; Walter J Curran; Pretesh Patel; Tian Liu; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: B Calio; A Sidana; D Sugano; S Gaur; A Jain; M Maruf; S Xu; P Yan; J Kruecker; M Merino; P Choyke; B Turkbey; B Wood; P Pinto Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 5.554