Cargando…

Normal Tissue Integral Dose as a Result of Prostate Radiation Therapy: A Quantitative Comparison Between High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy and Modern External Beam Radiation Therapy Techniques

PURPOSE: Quantification of integral radiation dose delivered during treatment for prostate cancer is lacking. We performed a comparative quantification of dose to nontarget body tissues delivered via 4 common radiation techniques: conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy, stereotactic body radi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grzywacz, Vincent P., Arden, Jessica D., Mankuzhy, Nikhil P., Gustafson, Gary S., Sebastian, Evelyn A., Abbott, Veronica L., Walters, Kailee J., Puzzonia, Julie A., Limbacher, Amy S., Hafron, Jason M., Krauss, Daniel J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9991537/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36896212
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2022.101160
_version_ 1784902172491644928
author Grzywacz, Vincent P.
Arden, Jessica D.
Mankuzhy, Nikhil P.
Gustafson, Gary S.
Sebastian, Evelyn A.
Abbott, Veronica L.
Walters, Kailee J.
Puzzonia, Julie A.
Limbacher, Amy S.
Hafron, Jason M.
Krauss, Daniel J.
author_facet Grzywacz, Vincent P.
Arden, Jessica D.
Mankuzhy, Nikhil P.
Gustafson, Gary S.
Sebastian, Evelyn A.
Abbott, Veronica L.
Walters, Kailee J.
Puzzonia, Julie A.
Limbacher, Amy S.
Hafron, Jason M.
Krauss, Daniel J.
author_sort Grzywacz, Vincent P.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Quantification of integral radiation dose delivered during treatment for prostate cancer is lacking. We performed a comparative quantification of dose to nontarget body tissues delivered via 4 common radiation techniques: conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy, pencil-beam scanning proton therapy, and high-dose-rate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Plans for each radiation technique were generated for 10 patients with typical anatomy. For brachytherapy plans, virtual needles were placed to achieve standard dosimetry. Standard planning target volume margins or robustness margins were applied as appropriate. A “normal tissue” structure (entire computed tomography simulation volume minus planning target volume) was generated for integral dose computation. Dose-volume histogram parameters for targets and normal structures were tabulated. Normal tissue integral dose was calculated by multiplying normal tissue volume by mean dose. RESULTS: Normal tissue integral dose was lowest for brachytherapy. Pencil-beam scanning protons, stereotactic body radiation therapy, and brachytherapy resulted in 17%, 57%, and 91% absolute reductions compared with standard volumetric modulated arc therapy, respectively. Mean nontarget tissues receiving 25%, 50%, and 75% of the prescription dose were reduced by 85%, 76%, and 83% for brachytherapy relative to volumetric modulated arc therapy, by 79%, 64%, and 74% relative to stereotactic body radiation therapy, and 73%, 60%, and 81% relative to proton therapy. All reductions observed using brachytherapy were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose-rate brachytherapy is an effective technique for reducing dose to nontarget body tissues relative to volumetric modulated arc therapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy, and pencil-beam scanning proton therapy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9991537
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99915372023-03-08 Normal Tissue Integral Dose as a Result of Prostate Radiation Therapy: A Quantitative Comparison Between High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy and Modern External Beam Radiation Therapy Techniques Grzywacz, Vincent P. Arden, Jessica D. Mankuzhy, Nikhil P. Gustafson, Gary S. Sebastian, Evelyn A. Abbott, Veronica L. Walters, Kailee J. Puzzonia, Julie A. Limbacher, Amy S. Hafron, Jason M. Krauss, Daniel J. Adv Radiat Oncol Scientific Article PURPOSE: Quantification of integral radiation dose delivered during treatment for prostate cancer is lacking. We performed a comparative quantification of dose to nontarget body tissues delivered via 4 common radiation techniques: conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy, pencil-beam scanning proton therapy, and high-dose-rate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Plans for each radiation technique were generated for 10 patients with typical anatomy. For brachytherapy plans, virtual needles were placed to achieve standard dosimetry. Standard planning target volume margins or robustness margins were applied as appropriate. A “normal tissue” structure (entire computed tomography simulation volume minus planning target volume) was generated for integral dose computation. Dose-volume histogram parameters for targets and normal structures were tabulated. Normal tissue integral dose was calculated by multiplying normal tissue volume by mean dose. RESULTS: Normal tissue integral dose was lowest for brachytherapy. Pencil-beam scanning protons, stereotactic body radiation therapy, and brachytherapy resulted in 17%, 57%, and 91% absolute reductions compared with standard volumetric modulated arc therapy, respectively. Mean nontarget tissues receiving 25%, 50%, and 75% of the prescription dose were reduced by 85%, 76%, and 83% for brachytherapy relative to volumetric modulated arc therapy, by 79%, 64%, and 74% relative to stereotactic body radiation therapy, and 73%, 60%, and 81% relative to proton therapy. All reductions observed using brachytherapy were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose-rate brachytherapy is an effective technique for reducing dose to nontarget body tissues relative to volumetric modulated arc therapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy, and pencil-beam scanning proton therapy. Elsevier 2022-12-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9991537/ /pubmed/36896212 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2022.101160 Text en © 2023 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Scientific Article
Grzywacz, Vincent P.
Arden, Jessica D.
Mankuzhy, Nikhil P.
Gustafson, Gary S.
Sebastian, Evelyn A.
Abbott, Veronica L.
Walters, Kailee J.
Puzzonia, Julie A.
Limbacher, Amy S.
Hafron, Jason M.
Krauss, Daniel J.
Normal Tissue Integral Dose as a Result of Prostate Radiation Therapy: A Quantitative Comparison Between High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy and Modern External Beam Radiation Therapy Techniques
title Normal Tissue Integral Dose as a Result of Prostate Radiation Therapy: A Quantitative Comparison Between High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy and Modern External Beam Radiation Therapy Techniques
title_full Normal Tissue Integral Dose as a Result of Prostate Radiation Therapy: A Quantitative Comparison Between High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy and Modern External Beam Radiation Therapy Techniques
title_fullStr Normal Tissue Integral Dose as a Result of Prostate Radiation Therapy: A Quantitative Comparison Between High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy and Modern External Beam Radiation Therapy Techniques
title_full_unstemmed Normal Tissue Integral Dose as a Result of Prostate Radiation Therapy: A Quantitative Comparison Between High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy and Modern External Beam Radiation Therapy Techniques
title_short Normal Tissue Integral Dose as a Result of Prostate Radiation Therapy: A Quantitative Comparison Between High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy and Modern External Beam Radiation Therapy Techniques
title_sort normal tissue integral dose as a result of prostate radiation therapy: a quantitative comparison between high-dose-rate brachytherapy and modern external beam radiation therapy techniques
topic Scientific Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9991537/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36896212
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2022.101160
work_keys_str_mv AT grzywaczvincentp normaltissueintegraldoseasaresultofprostateradiationtherapyaquantitativecomparisonbetweenhighdoseratebrachytherapyandmodernexternalbeamradiationtherapytechniques
AT ardenjessicad normaltissueintegraldoseasaresultofprostateradiationtherapyaquantitativecomparisonbetweenhighdoseratebrachytherapyandmodernexternalbeamradiationtherapytechniques
AT mankuzhynikhilp normaltissueintegraldoseasaresultofprostateradiationtherapyaquantitativecomparisonbetweenhighdoseratebrachytherapyandmodernexternalbeamradiationtherapytechniques
AT gustafsongarys normaltissueintegraldoseasaresultofprostateradiationtherapyaquantitativecomparisonbetweenhighdoseratebrachytherapyandmodernexternalbeamradiationtherapytechniques
AT sebastianevelyna normaltissueintegraldoseasaresultofprostateradiationtherapyaquantitativecomparisonbetweenhighdoseratebrachytherapyandmodernexternalbeamradiationtherapytechniques
AT abbottveronical normaltissueintegraldoseasaresultofprostateradiationtherapyaquantitativecomparisonbetweenhighdoseratebrachytherapyandmodernexternalbeamradiationtherapytechniques
AT walterskaileej normaltissueintegraldoseasaresultofprostateradiationtherapyaquantitativecomparisonbetweenhighdoseratebrachytherapyandmodernexternalbeamradiationtherapytechniques
AT puzzoniajuliea normaltissueintegraldoseasaresultofprostateradiationtherapyaquantitativecomparisonbetweenhighdoseratebrachytherapyandmodernexternalbeamradiationtherapytechniques
AT limbacheramys normaltissueintegraldoseasaresultofprostateradiationtherapyaquantitativecomparisonbetweenhighdoseratebrachytherapyandmodernexternalbeamradiationtherapytechniques
AT hafronjasonm normaltissueintegraldoseasaresultofprostateradiationtherapyaquantitativecomparisonbetweenhighdoseratebrachytherapyandmodernexternalbeamradiationtherapytechniques
AT kraussdanielj normaltissueintegraldoseasaresultofprostateradiationtherapyaquantitativecomparisonbetweenhighdoseratebrachytherapyandmodernexternalbeamradiationtherapytechniques