Cargando…
A Dosimetric Comparison between Conventional Fractionated and Hypofractionated Image-guided Radiation Therapies for Localized Prostate Cancer
BACKGROUND: Image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) is the preferred method for curative treatment of localized prostate cancer, which could improve disease outcome and reduce normal tissue toxicity reaction. IGRT using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in combination with volumetric-modulated arc...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4910368/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27270540 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.183429 |
_version_ | 1782438008191975424 |
---|---|
author | Li, Ming Li, Gao-Feng Hou, Xiu-Yu Gao, Hong Xu, Yong-Gang Zhao, Ting |
author_facet | Li, Ming Li, Gao-Feng Hou, Xiu-Yu Gao, Hong Xu, Yong-Gang Zhao, Ting |
author_sort | Li, Ming |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) is the preferred method for curative treatment of localized prostate cancer, which could improve disease outcome and reduce normal tissue toxicity reaction. IGRT using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in combination with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) potentially allows smaller treatment margins and dose escalation to the prostate. The aim of this study was to compare the difference of dosimetric diffusion in conventional IGRT using 7-field, step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and hypofractionated IGRT using VMAT for patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We studied 24 patients who received 78 Gy in 39 daily fractions or 70 Gy in 28 daily fractions to their prostate with/without the seminal vesicles using IMRT (n = 12) or VMAT (n = 12) for prostate cancer between November 2013 and October 2015. Image guidance was performed using kilovoltage CBCT scans equipped on the linear accelerator. Offline planning was performed using the daily treatment images registered with simulation computed tomography (CT) images. A total of 212 IMRT plans in conventional cohort and 292 VMAT plans in hypofractionated cohort were enrolled in the study. Dose distributions were recalculated on CBCT images registered with the planning CT scanner. RESULTS: Compared with 7-field, step-and-shoot IMRT, VMAT plans resulted in improved planning target volume (PTV) D95% (7663.17 ± 69.57 cGy vs. 7789.17 ± 131.76 cGy, P < 0.001). VMAT reduced the rectal D25 (P < 0.001), D35 (P < 0.001), and D50 (P < 0.001), bladder V50 (P < 0.001), D25 (P = 0.002), D35 (P = 0.028), and D50 (P = 0.029). However, VMAT did not statistically significantly reduce the rectal V50, compared with 7-field, step-and-shoot IMRT (25.02 ± 5.54% vs. 27.43 ± 8.79%, P = 0.087). CONCLUSIONS: To deliver the hypofractionated radiotherapy in prostate cancer, VMAT significantly increased PTV D95% dose and decreased the dose of radiation delivered to adjacent normal tissues comparing to 7-field, step-and-shoot IMRT. Daily online image-guidance and better management of bladder and rectum could make a more precise treatment delivery. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4910368 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49103682016-06-20 A Dosimetric Comparison between Conventional Fractionated and Hypofractionated Image-guided Radiation Therapies for Localized Prostate Cancer Li, Ming Li, Gao-Feng Hou, Xiu-Yu Gao, Hong Xu, Yong-Gang Zhao, Ting Chin Med J (Engl) Original Article BACKGROUND: Image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) is the preferred method for curative treatment of localized prostate cancer, which could improve disease outcome and reduce normal tissue toxicity reaction. IGRT using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in combination with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) potentially allows smaller treatment margins and dose escalation to the prostate. The aim of this study was to compare the difference of dosimetric diffusion in conventional IGRT using 7-field, step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and hypofractionated IGRT using VMAT for patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We studied 24 patients who received 78 Gy in 39 daily fractions or 70 Gy in 28 daily fractions to their prostate with/without the seminal vesicles using IMRT (n = 12) or VMAT (n = 12) for prostate cancer between November 2013 and October 2015. Image guidance was performed using kilovoltage CBCT scans equipped on the linear accelerator. Offline planning was performed using the daily treatment images registered with simulation computed tomography (CT) images. A total of 212 IMRT plans in conventional cohort and 292 VMAT plans in hypofractionated cohort were enrolled in the study. Dose distributions were recalculated on CBCT images registered with the planning CT scanner. RESULTS: Compared with 7-field, step-and-shoot IMRT, VMAT plans resulted in improved planning target volume (PTV) D95% (7663.17 ± 69.57 cGy vs. 7789.17 ± 131.76 cGy, P < 0.001). VMAT reduced the rectal D25 (P < 0.001), D35 (P < 0.001), and D50 (P < 0.001), bladder V50 (P < 0.001), D25 (P = 0.002), D35 (P = 0.028), and D50 (P = 0.029). However, VMAT did not statistically significantly reduce the rectal V50, compared with 7-field, step-and-shoot IMRT (25.02 ± 5.54% vs. 27.43 ± 8.79%, P = 0.087). CONCLUSIONS: To deliver the hypofractionated radiotherapy in prostate cancer, VMAT significantly increased PTV D95% dose and decreased the dose of radiation delivered to adjacent normal tissues comparing to 7-field, step-and-shoot IMRT. Daily online image-guidance and better management of bladder and rectum could make a more precise treatment delivery. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016-06-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4910368/ /pubmed/27270540 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.183429 Text en Copyright: © 2016 Chinese Medical Journal http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Li, Ming Li, Gao-Feng Hou, Xiu-Yu Gao, Hong Xu, Yong-Gang Zhao, Ting A Dosimetric Comparison between Conventional Fractionated and Hypofractionated Image-guided Radiation Therapies for Localized Prostate Cancer |
title | A Dosimetric Comparison between Conventional Fractionated and Hypofractionated Image-guided Radiation Therapies for Localized Prostate Cancer |
title_full | A Dosimetric Comparison between Conventional Fractionated and Hypofractionated Image-guided Radiation Therapies for Localized Prostate Cancer |
title_fullStr | A Dosimetric Comparison between Conventional Fractionated and Hypofractionated Image-guided Radiation Therapies for Localized Prostate Cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | A Dosimetric Comparison between Conventional Fractionated and Hypofractionated Image-guided Radiation Therapies for Localized Prostate Cancer |
title_short | A Dosimetric Comparison between Conventional Fractionated and Hypofractionated Image-guided Radiation Therapies for Localized Prostate Cancer |
title_sort | dosimetric comparison between conventional fractionated and hypofractionated image-guided radiation therapies for localized prostate cancer |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4910368/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27270540 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.183429 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT liming adosimetriccomparisonbetweenconventionalfractionatedandhypofractionatedimageguidedradiationtherapiesforlocalizedprostatecancer AT ligaofeng adosimetriccomparisonbetweenconventionalfractionatedandhypofractionatedimageguidedradiationtherapiesforlocalizedprostatecancer AT houxiuyu adosimetriccomparisonbetweenconventionalfractionatedandhypofractionatedimageguidedradiationtherapiesforlocalizedprostatecancer AT gaohong adosimetriccomparisonbetweenconventionalfractionatedandhypofractionatedimageguidedradiationtherapiesforlocalizedprostatecancer AT xuyonggang adosimetriccomparisonbetweenconventionalfractionatedandhypofractionatedimageguidedradiationtherapiesforlocalizedprostatecancer AT zhaoting adosimetriccomparisonbetweenconventionalfractionatedandhypofractionatedimageguidedradiationtherapiesforlocalizedprostatecancer AT liming dosimetriccomparisonbetweenconventionalfractionatedandhypofractionatedimageguidedradiationtherapiesforlocalizedprostatecancer AT ligaofeng dosimetriccomparisonbetweenconventionalfractionatedandhypofractionatedimageguidedradiationtherapiesforlocalizedprostatecancer AT houxiuyu dosimetriccomparisonbetweenconventionalfractionatedandhypofractionatedimageguidedradiationtherapiesforlocalizedprostatecancer AT gaohong dosimetriccomparisonbetweenconventionalfractionatedandhypofractionatedimageguidedradiationtherapiesforlocalizedprostatecancer AT xuyonggang dosimetriccomparisonbetweenconventionalfractionatedandhypofractionatedimageguidedradiationtherapiesforlocalizedprostatecancer AT zhaoting dosimetriccomparisonbetweenconventionalfractionatedandhypofractionatedimageguidedradiationtherapiesforlocalizedprostatecancer |