VMAT vs Eight Field Imrt: Dosimetric Comparison of Pelvic Radiotherapy for Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer in Terms of Bone Marrow Sparing

Amaç & Hipotez:Although there is no complete consensus on elective pelvic nodal irradiation for patients with high-riskprostate cancer, pelvic radiotherapy with androgen ablation has been more commonly used in many centers.An important part of bone marrow (BM) reserve remains in the pelvic radiation treatment field.

📊

Temel Bulgular & Veri:This studyaimed to evaluate and compare the intensity modulated (step-and-shoot IMRT: ssIMRT) and volumetricmodulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) techniques for pelvic radiotherapy in terms of pelvic BM doses.METHODSThis study was based on the simulation scan data of 10 patients with prostate cancer as 3-mm slicethickness using a full bladder and rectal balloon.

💡

Sonuç & Katkı:The two-sided Wilcoxon’stest was used for statistical analysis (p

🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi

📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem

⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Although there is no complete consensus on elective pelvic nodal irradiation for patients with high-riskprostate cancer, pelvic radiotherapy with androgen ablation has been more commonly used in many centers.An important part of bone marrow (BM) reserve remains in the pelvic radiation treatment field. This studyaimed to evaluate and compare the intensity modulated (step-and-shoot IMRT: ssIMRT) and volumetricmodulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) techniques for pelvic radiotherapy in terms of pelvic BM doses.METHODSThis study was based on the simulation scan data of 10 patients with prostate cancer as 3-mm slicethickness using a full bladder and rectal balloon. The first phase of the treatment planning prescribed topelvic lymphatic (46 Gy/2 Gy/fraction). The second phase consisted of the seminal vesicles and prostate(32 Gy/2 Gy/fraction). The PTV margin was 0.4 cm posteriorly due to rectum and 0.6 cm in all other(including PTVlymphatic) directions. Using same target volumes, ssIMRT with eight angles (225°, 260°,295°, 330°, 30°, 65°, 100°, 135°) and double arc (182°, -178° arc angle) VMAT were planned for eachpatient data set. The planning objective was to cover the PTV by at least 95% of the prescribed isodoseand CTV by 98% of the prescribed isodose line. No special dose constraint was given for BM sparing.Each technique was compared by using dose volume histograms (DVH) of V5, V10, V20, V30, V40of the sacral BM (SBM), iliac BM (IBM), and ischium, pubis, and proximal femora (lower pelvis) andfemoral BM (FBM). In addition, V20 V30, V40, and V70 for bladder, and V30, V40, V76, and V80 forthe rectum, homogeneity index and the monitor units (MU) were evaluated. The two-sided Wilcoxon’stest was used for statistical analysis (p

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

SELEK, U., SEZEN, D., BÖLÜKBAŞI, Y., SAĞLAM, Y., ALPAN, V. (2022). VMAT vs Eight Field Imrt: Dosimetric Comparison of Pelvic Radiotherapy for Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer in Terms of Bone Marrow Sparing. Türk Onkoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 3, 137–144. https://ajindex.com/articles/639222

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

Yeni Sekmede Aç ↗

↗Yeni Sekme

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (9)

Roach M 3rd, DeSilvio M, Lawton C, Uhl V, Machtay M, Seider MJ, et al. Phase III trial comparing whole- pelvic versus prostate-only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant versus adjuvant combined androgen suppression: RadiationTherapy Oncology Group 9413. J Clin Oncol 2003;21(10):1904–11
Lawton CA, DeSilvio M, Roach M 3rd, Uhl V, Kirsch R, Seider M, et al. An update of the phase III trial comparing whole pelvic to prostate onlyradiotherapy and neoadjuvant to adjuvant total androgen suppression: updatedanalysis of RTOG 94-13, with emphasis on unexpected hormone/radiationinteractions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;69(3):646–55
Millar J, Boyd R, Sutherland J. An update of the phase III trial comparing whole pelvic to prostate only radiotherapy and neoadjuvant to adjuvant total androgen suppression: updated analysis of RTOG 94-13, with emphasis on unexpected hormone/radiation interactions: in regard to Lawton et al. (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;69:646-655.). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71(1):316; author reply 316
Pommier P, Chabaud S, Lagrange JL, Richaud P, Lesaunier F, Le Prise E, et al. Is there a role for pelvic irradiation in localized prostate adenocarcinoma? Preliminary results of GETUG-01. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(34):5366–73
Mauch P, Constine L, Greenberger J, Knospe W, Sullivan J, Liesveld JL, et al. Hematopoietic stem cell compartment: acute and late effects of radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995;31(5):1319–39
Mundt AJ, Lujan AE, Rotmensch J, Waggoner SE, Yamada SD, Fleming G, et al. Intensity-modulated whole pelvic radiotherapy in women with gynecologic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;52(5):1330–7
Mell LK, Tiryaki H, Ahn KH, Mundt AJ, Roeske JC, Aydogan B. Dosimetric comparison of bone marrowsparing intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus conventional techniques for treatment of cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71(5):1504–10
Albuquerque K, Giangreco D, Morrison C, Siddiqui M, Sinacore J, Potkul R, et al. Radiation-related predictors of hematologic toxicity after concurrent chemoradiation for cervical cancer and implications for bone marrow-sparing pelvic IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011;79(4):1043–7
Liang Y, Bydder M, Yashar CM, Rose BS, Cornell M, Hoh CK, et al. Prospective study of functional bone marrow-sparing intensity modulated radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy for pelvic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;