37 research outputs found

    Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) vs. 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC): dosimetric comparison and clinical implications

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Purpose</p> <p>To compare target dose distribution, comformality, normal tissue avoidance, and irradiated body volume (IBV) in 3DCRT using classic anatomical landmarks (c3DCRT), 3DCRT fitting the PTV (f3DCRT), and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).</p> <p>Materials and methods</p> <p>Fifteen patients with LARC underwent c3DCRT, f3DCRT, and IMRT planning. Target definition followed the recommendations of the ICRU reports No. 50 and 62. OAR (SB and bladder) constraints were D5 ≤ 50 Gy and Dmax < 55 Gy. PTV dose prescription was defined as PTV95 ≥ 45 Gy and PTVmin ≥ 35 Gy. Target coverage was evaluated with the D95, Dmin, and Dmax. Target dose distribution and comformality was evaluated with the homogeneity indices (HI) and Conformity Index (CI). Normal tissue avoidance of OAR was evaluated with the D5 and V40. IBV at 5 Gy (V5), 10 Gy (V10), and 20 Gy (V20) were calculated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mean GTV95, CTV95, and PTV95 doses were significantly lower for IMRT plans. Target dose distribution was more inhomogeneous after IMRT planning and 3DCRTplans had significantly lower CI. The V40 and D5 values for OAR were significantly reduced in the IMRT plans .V5 was greater for IMRT than for f3DCRT planning (p < 0.05) and V20 was smaller for IMRT plans(p < 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>IMRT planning improves target conformity and decreases irradiation of the OAR at the expense of increased target heterogeneity. IMRT planning increases the IBV at 5 Gy or less but decreases the IBV at 20 Gy or more.</p

    Does Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) prevent additional toxicity of treating the pelvic lymph nodes compared to treatment of the prostate only?

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To evaluate the risk of rectal, bladder and small bowel toxicity in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) of the prostate only compared to additional irradiation of the pelvic lymphatic region.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>For ten patients with localized prostate cancer, IMRT plans with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) were generated for treatment of the prostate only (plan-PO) and for additional treatment of the pelvic lymph nodes (plan-WP). In plan-PO, doses of 60 Gy and 74 Gy (33 fractions) were prescribed to the seminal vesicles and to the prostate, respectively. Three plans-WP were generated with prescription doses of 46 Gy, 50.4 Gy and 54 Gy to the pelvic target volume; doses to the prostate and seminal vesicles were identical to plan-PO. The risk of rectal, bladder and small bowel toxicity was estimated based on NTCP calculations.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Doses to the prostate were not significantly different between plan-PO and plan-WP and doses to the pelvic lymph nodes were as planned. Plan-WP resulted in increased doses to the rectum in the low-dose region ≤ 30 Gy, only, no difference was observed in the mid and high-dose region. Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for late rectal toxicity ranged between 5% and 8% with no significant difference between plan-PO and plan-WP. NTCP for late bladder toxicity was less than 1% for both plan-PO and plan-WP. The risk of small bowel toxicity was moderately increased for plan-WP.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This retrospective planning study predicted similar risks of rectal, bladder and small bowel toxicity for IMRT treatment of the prostate only and for additional treatment of the pelvic lymph nodes.</p

    Long-term results of the Dutch randomized prostate cancer trial: Impact of dose-escalation on local, biochemical, clinical failure, and survival

    No full text
    Purpose: Nowadays, advanced irradiation techniques make it possible to escalate safely the dose in prostate cancer. We studied the effect of a higher dose on tumor control in a randomized trial with a median follow-up of 110 months. Patients and methods: Patients with T1b-T4NO prostate cancer (n = 664) were randomized between 78 Gy and 68 Gy. Primary endpoint was biochemical and/or clinical failure (BCF) according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) guidelines (3 consecutive rises), and to Phoenix (nadir plus 2 mu g/L). Secondary endpoints were clinical failure (CF), local failure (LF), prostate cancer death (PCD), and overall survival (OS). Explorative subgroup analyses were performed. Results: BCF rate (HR = 0.8; 20% less events) and LF rate (HR = 0.5; 50% less events) were significantly lower in the 78 Gy arm (p < 0.05). CF, PCD and OS were similar in both arms. A significant heterogeneity of treatment effect was found for PSA cutoffs between 7 and 10 mu g/L. Conclusion: We observed significantly less BCF and LF in the high-dose arm. This suggests improvement of the therapeutic ratio. However, we observed similar rates of CF and PCD at the current update. More follow-up is needed to investigate which patients benefit in terms of prolonged OS. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology 110 (2014) 104-10
    corecore