» Articles » PMID: 31399115

A Treatment Planning Study Comparing IMRT Techniques and Cyber Knife for Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Low-risk Prostate Carcinoma

Overview
Journal Radiat Oncol
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialties Oncology
Radiology
Date 2019 Aug 11
PMID 31399115
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Comparing radiation treatment plans by using the same safety margins and dose objectives for all techniques, to ascertain the optimal radiation technique for the stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of low-risk prostate cancer.

Material And Methods: Treatment plans for 27 randomly selected patients were compared using intensity-modulated (IMRT) techniques as Sliding Window (SW), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT), as well as Cyber Knife (CK) system. The target dose was calculated to 36.25 Gy delivered in five fractions over 1 week. Dosimetric indices for target volume and organs at risk (OAR) as well as normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of late rectal and urinary bladder toxicities were analyzed.

Results: The CK provided lower homogeneity in the target volume, but higher values for most of the conformity indices compared to the IMRT approaches. The SW demonstrated superior rectum sparing at medium-to-high dose range (V18 Gy - V32.6 Gy) compared to other techniques (p < 0.05). The whole urinary bladder experienced the best shielding by SW and VMAT at the medium dose (V18 Gy, p < 0.05 versus CK), however we obtained no relevant differences between techniques at the high dose. Generally, the CK demonstrated significantly superior rectum and bladder exposure at V18 Gy as compared to HT, SW, and VMAT. For the rectum, mean NTCP values were significantly superior for HT (NTCP = 2.3%, p < 0.05), and for urinary bladder, the NTCP showed no significant advantages for any technique.

Conclusion: No absolute dosimetric advantage was revealed to choose between CK or IMRT techniques for the SBRT of low-grade prostate cancer. Using the same safety margins and dose objectives, IMRT techniques demonstrated superior sparing of the rectum and bladder at a medium dose compared to CK. Comparing different IMRT approaches SW displayed superior rectum sparing at a medium-to-high dose range, whereas both SW and RA revealed superior bladder sparing compared to HT. HT demonstrated a significantly lower NTCP outcome compared to CK or IMRT techniques regarding the rectum. Radiation plans can be optimized further by an individual modification of dose objectives independent of the treatment plan strategy.

Citing Articles

Stereotactic Radiosurgery in Metastatic Spine Disease-A Systemic Review of the Literature.

Palacio Giraldo A, Sohm D, Neugebauer J, Leone G, Bergovec M, Dammerer D Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(16).

PMID: 39199560 PMC: 11352806. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16162787.


Comparative Study of Eclipse and RayStation Multi-Criteria Optimization-Based Prostate Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Quality.

Wong J, Leung V, Hung R, Ng C Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(5).

PMID: 38472938 PMC: 10931516. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14050465.


Association between gut microbial change and acute gastrointestinal toxicity in patients with prostate cancer receiving definitive radiation therapy.

Jang B, Chung M, Lee D Cancer Med. 2023; 12(22):20727-20735.

PMID: 37921267 PMC: 10709749. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6636.


Cyberknife Radiosurgery for Prostate Cancer after Abdominoperineal Resection (CYRANO): The Combined Computer Tomography and Electromagnetic Navigation Guided Transperineal Fiducial Markers Implantation Technique.

Vavassori A, Mauri G, Mazzola G, Mastroleo F, Bonomo G, Durante S Curr Oncol. 2023; 30(9):7926-7935.

PMID: 37754491 PMC: 10529393. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30090576.


Stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer: a study comparing 3-year genitourinary toxicity between CyberKnife and volumetric-modulated arc therapy by propensity score analysis.

Ito M, Yoshioka Y, Takase Y, Suzuki J, Takahashi H, Minami Y Radiat Oncol. 2023; 18(1):39.

PMID: 36823674 PMC: 9948419. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-023-02233-4.


References
1.
Ju A, Wang H, Oermann E, Sherer B, Uhm S, Chen V . Hypofractionated stereotactic body radiation therapy as monotherapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Radiat Oncol. 2013; 8:30. PMC: 3570380. DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-30. View

2.
Madsen B, Hsi R, Pham H, Fowler J, Esagui L, Corman J . Stereotactic hypofractionated accurate radiotherapy of the prostate (SHARP), 33.5 Gy in five fractions for localized disease: first clinical trial results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007; 67(4):1099-105. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.10.050. View

3.
McBride S, Wong D, J Dombrowski J, Harkins B, Tapella P, Hanscom H . Hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy in low-risk prostate adenocarcinoma: preliminary results of a multi-institutional phase 1 feasibility trial. Cancer. 2011; 118(15):3681-90. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26699. View

4.
Lee S, Jang H, Lee J, Kim S, Yoon S . Stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer patients with old age or medical comorbidity: a 5-year follow-up of an investigational study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2014; 93(28):e290. PMC: 4603131. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000290. View

5.
Wilder R, Chittenden L, Mesa A, Bunyapanasarn J, Agustin J, Lizarde J . A prospective study of intrafraction prostate motion in the prone vs. supine position. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 77(1):165-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.041. View