Cargando…

Maximizing rectal dose sparing with hydrogel: A retrospective planning study

External beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer can result in urinary, sexual, and rectal side effects, often impairing quality of life. A polyethylene glycol‐based product, SpaceOAR© hydrogel (SOH), implanted into the connective tissue between the prostate gland and rectum can significantly red...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Paetkau, Owen, Gagne, Isabelle M., Pai, Howard H., Lam, Jacqueline, Goulart, Jennifer, Alexander, Abraham
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6448161/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30889318
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12566
_version_ 1783408641810890752
author Paetkau, Owen
Gagne, Isabelle M.
Pai, Howard H.
Lam, Jacqueline
Goulart, Jennifer
Alexander, Abraham
author_facet Paetkau, Owen
Gagne, Isabelle M.
Pai, Howard H.
Lam, Jacqueline
Goulart, Jennifer
Alexander, Abraham
author_sort Paetkau, Owen
collection PubMed
description External beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer can result in urinary, sexual, and rectal side effects, often impairing quality of life. A polyethylene glycol‐based product, SpaceOAR© hydrogel (SOH), implanted into the connective tissue between the prostate gland and rectum can significantly reduce the dose received by the rectum and hence risk of rectal toxicity. The optimal way to manage the hydrogel and rectal structures for plan optimization is therefore of interest. In 13 patients, computerized tomography (CT) scans were taken pre‐ and post‐SpaceOAR© implant. A prescription of 60 Gy in 20 fractions was planned on both scans. Six treatment plans were produced per anonymized dataset using either a structure of rectum plus the hydrogel, termed composite rectum wall (CRW), or rectal wall (RW) as an inverse optimization structure and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) as a treatment technique. Dose‐volume histogram metrics were compared between plans to determine which optimization structure and treatment technique offered the maximum rectal dose sparing. RW structures offered a statistically significant decrease in rectal dose over CRW structures, whereas the treatment technique (IMRT vs VMAT) did not significantly affect the rectal dose. There was improvement seen in bladder and penile bulb dose when VMAT was used as a treatment technique. Overall, treatment plans using the RW optimization structure offered the lowest rectal dose while VMAT treatment technique offered the lowest bladder and penile bulb dose.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6448161
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64481612019-04-15 Maximizing rectal dose sparing with hydrogel: A retrospective planning study Paetkau, Owen Gagne, Isabelle M. Pai, Howard H. Lam, Jacqueline Goulart, Jennifer Alexander, Abraham J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics External beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer can result in urinary, sexual, and rectal side effects, often impairing quality of life. A polyethylene glycol‐based product, SpaceOAR© hydrogel (SOH), implanted into the connective tissue between the prostate gland and rectum can significantly reduce the dose received by the rectum and hence risk of rectal toxicity. The optimal way to manage the hydrogel and rectal structures for plan optimization is therefore of interest. In 13 patients, computerized tomography (CT) scans were taken pre‐ and post‐SpaceOAR© implant. A prescription of 60 Gy in 20 fractions was planned on both scans. Six treatment plans were produced per anonymized dataset using either a structure of rectum plus the hydrogel, termed composite rectum wall (CRW), or rectal wall (RW) as an inverse optimization structure and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) as a treatment technique. Dose‐volume histogram metrics were compared between plans to determine which optimization structure and treatment technique offered the maximum rectal dose sparing. RW structures offered a statistically significant decrease in rectal dose over CRW structures, whereas the treatment technique (IMRT vs VMAT) did not significantly affect the rectal dose. There was improvement seen in bladder and penile bulb dose when VMAT was used as a treatment technique. Overall, treatment plans using the RW optimization structure offered the lowest rectal dose while VMAT treatment technique offered the lowest bladder and penile bulb dose. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-03-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6448161/ /pubmed/30889318 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12566 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Paetkau, Owen
Gagne, Isabelle M.
Pai, Howard H.
Lam, Jacqueline
Goulart, Jennifer
Alexander, Abraham
Maximizing rectal dose sparing with hydrogel: A retrospective planning study
title Maximizing rectal dose sparing with hydrogel: A retrospective planning study
title_full Maximizing rectal dose sparing with hydrogel: A retrospective planning study
title_fullStr Maximizing rectal dose sparing with hydrogel: A retrospective planning study
title_full_unstemmed Maximizing rectal dose sparing with hydrogel: A retrospective planning study
title_short Maximizing rectal dose sparing with hydrogel: A retrospective planning study
title_sort maximizing rectal dose sparing with hydrogel: a retrospective planning study
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6448161/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30889318
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12566
work_keys_str_mv AT paetkauowen maximizingrectaldosesparingwithhydrogelaretrospectiveplanningstudy
AT gagneisabellem maximizingrectaldosesparingwithhydrogelaretrospectiveplanningstudy
AT paihowardh maximizingrectaldosesparingwithhydrogelaretrospectiveplanningstudy
AT lamjacqueline maximizingrectaldosesparingwithhydrogelaretrospectiveplanningstudy
AT goulartjennifer maximizingrectaldosesparingwithhydrogelaretrospectiveplanningstudy
AT alexanderabraham maximizingrectaldosesparingwithhydrogelaretrospectiveplanningstudy