Randall J Brenneman1, S Murty Goddu1, Neal Andruska1, Amit Roy1, Walter R Bosch1, Benjamin Fischer-Valuck2, Jason A Efstathiou3, Hiram A Gay1, Jeff M Michalski1, Brian C Baumann4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: brian.baumann@wustl.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The use of prostate fiducial markers and perirectal hydrogel spacers can reduce the acute and late toxic effects associated with prostate radiation therapy. These procedures are usually performed days to weeks before simulation during a separate clinic visit to ensure resolution of procedure-related inflammation. The purpose of this study was to assess whether same-day intraprostatic fiducial marker placement, perirectal hydrogel injection, and computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) simulation were feasible without adversely affecting hydrogel volume, perirectal spacing, or rectal dose. If feasible, performing these procedures on the same day as simulation would expedite the start of radiation therapy, improve patient convenience, and reduce costs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-one patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who were enrolled on a prospective clinical trial (NCT01617161) underwent same-day marker placement, hydrogel injection, and CT and MRI simulation, then underwent T2 MRI verification scans 3 to 4 weeks later. The MRI scans were fused to the CT planning scans by clinical target volumes (CTVs) to generate comparison treatment plans (70 Gy in 28 fractions). Hydrogel volume and symmetry, perirectal spacing, CTV dose, and organ-at-risk dose were evaluated. RESULTS: Verification scans occurred a mean of 24.9 ± 4.6 days after simulation and 9.3 ± 4.9 days after treatment start. Prostate volume did not change between scans (median, 67.3 ± 22.1 cm3 vs 64.1 ± 21.8 cm3; P = .64). The median hydrogel change between simulation and verification was -1.8% ± 4.5% (P = .27). No significant differences in perirectal spacing (midgland: 1.33 ± 0.45 cm vs 1.3 ± 0.7 cm; 1 cm superior: 1.25 ± 0.95 cm vs 1.43 ± 0.91 cm; 1 cm inferior: 1.16 ± 0.28 cm vs 1.41 ± 0.49 cm) were identified. No significant differences in rectal V66 (median 2.3 ± 2.18% vs 2.3 ± 2.28%; P = .99), V35 (median 14.79 ± 7.61 vs 14.67 ± 8.4; P = .73), or D1cc (65.7 ± 9.2 Gy vs 68.2 ± 9.0 Gy; P = .80) were found. All plans met CTV and organ-at-risk constraints. CONCLUSION: Same-day placement of intraprostatic fiducial markers, perirectal hydrogel, and simulation scans was feasible and did not significantly affect hydrogel volume, position, CTV coverage, or rectal dose.
PURPOSE: The use of prostate fiducial markers and perirectal hydrogel spacers can reduce the acute and late toxic effects associated with prostate radiation therapy. These procedures are usually performed days to weeks before simulation during a separate clinic visit to ensure resolution of procedure-related inflammation. The purpose of this study was to assess whether same-day intraprostatic fiducial marker placement, perirectal hydrogel injection, and computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) simulation were feasible without adversely affecting hydrogel volume, perirectal spacing, or rectal dose. If feasible, performing these procedures on the same day as simulation would expedite the start of radiation therapy, improve patient convenience, and reduce costs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-one patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who were enrolled on a prospective clinical trial (NCT01617161) underwent same-day marker placement, hydrogel injection, and CT and MRI simulation, then underwent T2 MRI verification scans 3 to 4 weeks later. The MRI scans were fused to the CT planning scans by clinical target volumes (CTVs) to generate comparison treatment plans (70 Gy in 28 fractions). Hydrogel volume and symmetry, perirectal spacing, CTV dose, and organ-at-risk dose were evaluated. RESULTS: Verification scans occurred a mean of 24.9 ± 4.6 days after simulation and 9.3 ± 4.9 days after treatment start. Prostate volume did not change between scans (median, 67.3 ± 22.1 cm3 vs 64.1 ± 21.8 cm3; P = .64). The median hydrogel change between simulation and verification was -1.8% ± 4.5% (P = .27). No significant differences in perirectal spacing (midgland: 1.33 ± 0.45 cm vs 1.3 ± 0.7 cm; 1 cm superior: 1.25 ± 0.95 cm vs 1.43 ± 0.91 cm; 1 cm inferior: 1.16 ± 0.28 cm vs 1.41 ± 0.49 cm) were identified. No significant differences in rectal V66 (median 2.3 ± 2.18% vs 2.3 ± 2.28%; P = .99), V35 (median 14.79 ± 7.61 vs 14.67 ± 8.4; P = .73), or D1cc (65.7 ± 9.2 Gy vs 68.2 ± 9.0 Gy; P = .80) were found. All plans met CTV and organ-at-risk constraints. CONCLUSION: Same-day placement of intraprostatic fiducial markers, perirectal hydrogel, and simulation scans was feasible and did not significantly affect hydrogel volume, position, CTV coverage, or rectal dose.
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: Frank Wolf; Christoph Gaisberger; Ingrid Ziegler; Elisabeth Krenn; Philipp Scherer; Stephan Hruby; Tobias Schätz; Rosemarie Forstner; Josef Holzinger; Andrea Vaszi; Gerhard Kametriser; Philipp Steininger; Heinz Deutschmann; Felix Sedlmayer Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2015-07-28 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: William C Chen; Yun Li; Ann Lazar; Aysu Altun; Martina Descovich; Tomi Nano; Benjamin Ziemer; Atchar Sudhyadhom; Adam Cunha; Horatio Thomas; Alexander Gottschalk; I-Chow Hsu; Mack Roach Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-12-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Neil Mariados; John Sylvester; Dhiren Shah; Lawrence Karsh; Richard Hudes; David Beyer; Steven Kurtzman; Jeffrey Bogart; R Alex Hsi; Michael Kos; Rodney Ellis; Mark Logsdon; Shawn Zimberg; Kevin Forsythe; Hong Zhang; Edward Soffen; Patrick Francke; Constantine Mantz; Peter Rossi; Theodore DeWeese; Daniel A Hamstra; Walter Bosch; Hiram Gay; Jeff Michalski Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Daniel A Hamstra; Neil Mariados; John Sylvester; Dhiren Shah; Lawrence Karsh; Richard Hudes; David Beyer; Steven Kurtzman; Jeffrey Bogart; R Alex Hsi; Michael Kos; Rodney Ellis; Mark Logsdon; Shawn Zimberg; Kevin Forsythe; Hong Zhang; Edward Soffen; Patrick Francke; Constantine Mantz; Peter Rossi; Theodore DeWeese; Stephanie Daignault-Newton; Benjamin W Fischer-Valuck; Anupama Chundury; Hiram Gay; Walter Bosch; Jeff Michalski Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-12-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Daniel A Hamstra; Anna S C Conlon; Stephanie Daignault; Rodney L Dunn; Howard M Sandler; A Larry Hembroff; Anthony L Zietman; Irving Kaplan; Jay Ciezki; Deborah A Kuban; John T Wei; Martin G Sanda; Jeff M Michalski Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Zachary A Seymour; Daniel A Hamstra; Stephanie Daignault-Newton; Walter Bosch; Jeffery Michalski; Hiram A Gay; Michael Pinkawa Journal: BJU Int Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Ritchell van Dams; Naomi Y Jiang; Donald B Fuller; Andrew Loblaw; Tommy Jiang; Alan J Katz; Sean P Collins; Nima Aghdam; Simeng Suy; Kevin L Stephans; Ye Yuan; Nicholas G Nickols; Vedang Murthy; Tejshri P Telkhade; Patrick A Kupelian; Michael L Steinberg; Tahmineh Romero; Amar U Kishan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 7.038