A Dosimetric Comparison between Conventional Fractionated and Hypofractionated Image-guided Radiation Therapies for Localized Prostate Cancer.
- Author:
Ming LI
1
;
Gao-Feng LI
1
;
Xiu-Yu HOU
1
;
Hong GAO
1
;
Yong-Gang XU
1
;
Ting ZHAO
1
Author Information
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Humans; Male; Prostate; pathology; radiation effects; Prostatic Neoplasms; pathology; radiotherapy; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy, Image-Guided; methods; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated; methods; Retrospective Studies
- From: Chinese Medical Journal 2016;129(12):1447-1454
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUNDImage-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.
METHODSWe 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.
RESULTSCompared 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).
CONCLUSIONSTo 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.
