Amit Roy1, Olga Green1, Randall Brenneman1, Walter Bosch1, Hiram A Gay1, Jeff M Michalski1, Brian C Baumann2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. Electronic address: brian.baumann@wustl.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We evaluated inter-fraction penile bulb (PB) changes in prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing MR-guided RT in the post-radical prostatectomy (RP) setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 10 patients with PCa status-post RP received MR-guided RT from 2017-2019. Patients received daily setup volumetric MRI scans prior to RT delivery for alignment and target localization. Setup MRI datasets from Fx 1, Fx 19, and Fx 37 were fused for each patient based on soft tissue anatomy. The PB was contoured on each MRI. Data on volume (cc), superior/inferior positional change (cm), and mean dose (Gy) was collected. Differences were assessed by Student's t-test (sig. p<0.05). RESULTS: The mean PB volume change from Fx 1→ 19 was +0.34 ± 0.34 cc (p=0.11) and from Fx 1→ 37 was +0.22 ± 0.28 cc (p=0.31). The mean positional change from Fx 1→ 19 was +0.08±0.26 cm (p=0.37) and from Fx 1→ 37 was +0.05 ±0.25 cm (p=0.57). The mean change in mean PB dose from Fx 1→ 19 was +0.19±4.86 Gy (p=0.98) and from Fx 1→ 37 was -1.51≖7.46 Gy (p=0.88). CONCLUSION: We present the first study evaluating inter-fraction changes to the PB during MR-guided RT. We found no clinically meaningful difference in the volume, positional change, or mean dose during RT in the post-prostatectomy setting, suggesting that PB organ motion may not need to be accounted for in radiation treatment planning.
BACKGROUND: We evaluated inter-fraction penile bulb (PB) changes in prostate cancer (PCa) patients undergoing MR-guided RT in the post-radical prostatectomy (RP) setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 10 patients with PCa status-post RP received MR-guided RT from 2017-2019. Patients received daily setup volumetric MRI scans prior to RT delivery for alignment and target localization. Setup MRI datasets from Fx 1, Fx 19, and Fx 37 were fused for each patient based on soft tissue anatomy. The PB was contoured on each MRI. Data on volume (cc), superior/inferior positional change (cm), and mean dose (Gy) was collected. Differences were assessed by Student's t-test (sig. p<0.05). RESULTS: The mean PB volume change from Fx 1→ 19 was +0.34 ± 0.34 cc (p=0.11) and from Fx 1→ 37 was +0.22 ± 0.28 cc (p=0.31). The mean positional change from Fx 1→ 19 was +0.08±0.26 cm (p=0.37) and from Fx 1→ 37 was +0.05 ±0.25 cm (p=0.57). The mean change in mean PB dose from Fx 1→ 19 was +0.19±4.86 Gy (p=0.98) and from Fx 1→ 37 was -1.51≖7.46 Gy (p=0.88). CONCLUSION: We present the first study evaluating inter-fraction changes to the PB during MR-guided RT. We found no clinically meaningful difference in the volume, positional change, or mean dose during RT in the post-prostatectomy setting, suggesting that PB organ motion may not need to be accounted for in radiation treatment planning.
Authors: Mack Roach; Kathryn Winter; Jeffrey M Michalski; James D Cox; James A Purdy; Walter Bosch; Xiao Lin; William S Shipley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A Gabriella Wernicke; Richard Valicenti; Kelly Dieva; Christopher Houser; Ed Pequignot Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: L E Henke; J A Contreras; O L Green; B Cai; H Kim; M C Roach; J R Olsen; B Fischer-Valuck; D F Mullen; R Kashani; M A Thomas; J Huang; I Zoberi; D Yang; V Rodriguez; J D Bradley; C G Robinson; P Parikh; S Mutic; J Michalski Journal: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Mack Roach; Jiho Nam; Giovanna Gagliardi; Issam El Naqa; Joseph O Deasy; Lawrence B Marks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Scott C Morgan; Karen Hoffman; D Andrew Loblaw; Mark K Buyyounouski; Caroline Patton; Daniel Barocas; Soren Bentzen; Michael Chang; Jason Efstathiou; Patrick Greany; Per Halvorsen; Bridget F Koontz; Colleen Lawton; C Marc Leyrer; Daniel Lin; Michael Ray; Howard Sandler Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-10-11
Authors: Christopher J D Wallis; Zhiguo Zhao; Li-Ching Huang; David F Penson; Tatsuki Koyama; Sherrie H Kaplan; Sheldon Greenfield; Amy N Luckenbaugh; Zachary Klaassen; Ralph Conwill; Michael Goodman; Ann S Hamilton; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette Stroup; Matthew R Cooperberg; Mia Hashibe; Brock B O'Neil; Karen E Hoffman; Daniel A Barocas Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Jeff M Michalski; Colleen Lawton; Issam El Naqa; Mark Ritter; Elizabeth O'Meara; Michael J Seider; W Robert Lee; Seth A Rosenthal; Thomas Pisansky; Charles Catton; Richard K Valicenti; Anthony L Zietman; Walter R Bosch; Howard Sandler; Mark K Buyyounouski; Cynthia Ménard Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ugur Selek; Rex Cheung; Mingfwu Lii; Pamela Allen; Roy E Steadham; Terry R Vantreese; Darren J Little; Isaac I Rosen; Deborah Kuban Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-07-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nicholas G Zaorsky; Timothy N Showalter; Gary A Ezzell; Paul L Nguyen; Dean G Assimos; Anthony V D'Amico; Alexander R Gottschalk; Gary S Gustafson; Sameer R Keole; Stanley L Liauw; Shane Lloyd; Patrick W McLaughlin; Benjamin Movsas; Bradley R Prestidge; Al V Taira; Neha Vapiwala; Brian J Davis Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-03-20