PURPOSE: To evaluate online/offline image-guided/adaptive treatment techniques for prostate cancer radiation therapy with daily cone-beam CT (CBCT) imaging.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three treatment techniques were evaluated retrospectively using daily pre- and posttreatment CBCT images on 22 prostate cancer patients. Prostate, seminal vesicles (SV), rectal wall, and bladder were delineated on all CBCT images. For each patient, a pretreatment intensity modulated radiation therapy plan with clinical target volume (CTV) = prostate + SV and planning target volume (PTV) = CTV + 3 mm was created. The 3 treatment techniques were as follows: (1) Daily Correction: The pretreatment intensity modulated radiation therapy plan was delivered after online CBCT imaging, and position correction; (2) Online Planning: Daily online inverse plans with 3-mm CTV-to-PTV margin were created using online CBCT images, and delivered; and (3) Hybrid Adaption: Daily Correction plus an offline adaptive inverse planning performed after the first week of treatment. The adaptive plan was delivered for all remaining 15 fractions. Treatment dose for each technique was constructed using the daily posttreatment CBCT images via deformable image registration. Evaluation was performed using treatment dose distribution in target and critical organs.
RESULTS: Treatment equivalent uniform dose (EUD) for the CTV was within [85.6%, 100.8%] of the pretreatment planned target EUD for Daily Correction; [98.7%, 103.0%] for Online Planning; and [99.2%, 103.4%] for Hybrid Adaptation. Eighteen percent of the 22 patients in Daily Correction had a target dose deficiency >5%. For rectal wall, the mean ± SD of the normalized EUD was 102.6% ± 2.7% for Daily Correction, 99.9% ± 2.5% for Online Planning, and 100.6% ± 2.1% for Hybrid Adaptation. The mean ± SD of the normalized bladder EUD was 108.7% ± 8.2% for Daily Correction, 92.7% ± 8.6% for Online Planning, and 89.4% ± 10.8% for Hybrid Adaptation.
CONCLUSIONS: Both Online Planning and Hybrid Adaptation can achieve comparable target coverage and normal tissue sparing and are superior to the Daily Correction technique. The Daily Correction technique using a 3-mm target margin in the pretreatment plan is not appropriate to compensate for residual variations in CBCT image-guided prostate cancer radiation therapy.
Qin A, Sun Y, Liang J, Yan D. Are you the author?
Department of Radiation Oncology, Beaumont Health System, Royal Oak, Michigan; 2Department of Radiotherapy, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Reference: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Apr 1;91(5):1026-33.