OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to investigate the dosimetric effect and clinical impact of delivering a focal radiotherapy boost dose to multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI)-defined dominant intraprostatic lesions (DILs) in prostate cancer using proton therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated 36 patients with pre-treatment mp-MRI and CT images who were treated using pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton radiation therapy to the whole prostate. DILs were contoured on co-registered mp-MRIs. Simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) plans using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) were created based on conventional whole-prostate-irradiation for each patient and optimized with additional DIL coverage goals and urethral constraints. DIL dose coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing were compared between conventional and SIB plans. Tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were estimated to evaluate the clinical impact of the SIB plans. RESULTS: Optimized SIB plans significantly escalated the dose to DILs while meeting OAR constraints. SIB plans were able to achieve 125, 150 and 175% of prescription dose coverage in 74, 54 and 17% of 36 patients, respectively. This was modeled to result in an increase in DIL TCP by 7.3-13.3% depending on α/β and DIL risk level. CONCLUSION: The proposed mp-MRI-guided DIL boost using proton radiation therapy is feasible without violating OAR constraints and demonstrates a potential clinical benefit by improving DIL TCP. This retrospective study suggested the use of IMPT-based DIL SIB may represent a strategy to improve tumor control. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study investigated the planning of mp-MRI-guided DIL boost in prostate proton radiation therapy and estimated its clinical impact with respect to TCP and NTCP.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to investigate the dosimetric effect and clinical impact of delivering a focal radiotherapy boost dose to multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI)-defined dominant intraprostatic lesions (DILs) in prostate cancer using proton therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated 36 patients with pre-treatment mp-MRI and CT images who were treated using pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton radiation therapy to the whole prostate. DILs were contoured on co-registered mp-MRIs. Simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) plans using intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) were created based on conventional whole-prostate-irradiation for each patient and optimized with additional DIL coverage goals and urethral constraints. DIL dose coverage and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing were compared between conventional and SIB plans. Tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were estimated to evaluate the clinical impact of the SIB plans. RESULTS: Optimized SIB plans significantly escalated the dose to DILs while meeting OAR constraints. SIB plans were able to achieve 125, 150 and 175% of prescription dose coverage in 74, 54 and 17% of 36 patients, respectively. This was modeled to result in an increase in DIL TCP by 7.3-13.3% depending on α/β and DIL risk level. CONCLUSION: The proposed mp-MRI-guided DIL boost using proton radiation therapy is feasible without violating OAR constraints and demonstrates a potential clinical benefit by improving DIL TCP. This retrospective study suggested the use of IMPT-based DIL SIB may represent a strategy to improve tumor control. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study investigated the planning of mp-MRI-guided DIL boost in prostate proton radiation therapy and estimated its clinical impact with respect to TCP and NTCP.
Authors: John J Cuaron; Alexander A Harris; Brian Chon; Henry Tsai; Gary Larson; William F Hartsell; Eugen Hug; Oren Cahlon Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2015-01-16 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: W Robert Lee; James J Dignam; Mahul B Amin; Deborah W Bruner; Daniel Low; Gregory P Swanson; Amit B Shah; David P D'Souza; Jeff M Michalski; Ian S Dayes; Samantha A Seaward; William A Hall; Paul L Nguyen; Thomas M Pisansky; Sergio L Faria; Yuhchyau Chen; Bridget F Koontz; Rebecca Paulus; Howard M Sandler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeffrey Vainshtein; Eyad Abu-Isa; Karin B Olson; Michael E Ray; Howard M Sandler; Dan Normolle; Dale W Litzenberg; Kathryn Masi; Charlie Pan; Daniel A Hamstra Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2012-06-09 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Louise J Murray; John Lilley; Christopher M Thompson; Vivian Cosgrove; Josh Mason; Jonathan Sykes; Kevin Franks; David Sebag-Montefiore; Ann M Henry Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Luke A Matkovic; Tonghe Wang; Yang Lei; Oladunni O Akin-Akintayo; Olayinka A Abiodun Ojo; Akinyemi A Akintayo; Justin Roper; Jeffery D Bradley; Tian Liu; David M Schuster; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Zachary A Eidex; Tonghe Wang; Yang Lei; Marian Axente; Oladunni O Akin-Akintayo; Olayinka A Abiodun Ojo; Akinyemi A Akintayo; Justin Roper; Jeffery D Bradley; Tian Liu; David M Schuster; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-05-17 Impact factor: 4.506
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