Clinical implementation of dynamic and step-and-shoot IMRT to treat prostate cancer with high risk of pelvic lymph node involvement

Clinical implementation of dynamic and step-and-shoot IMRT to treat prostate cancer with high risk of pelvic lymph node involvement Background and purpose: Two systems have been developed for treating patients with locally advanced prostate cancer using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT): one using dynamic multi-leaf collimator delivery and the other using step-and- shoot. This paper describes the clinical implementation of these two techniques, and presents results from the first 14 patients treated in a clinical setting (nine dynamic, five step-and-shoot). Patients and methods: Dynamic treatments were planned using Corvus, and step-and-shoot using Helax-TMS; all were delivered using Elekta accelerators. Prior to the first clinical treatments, validation measurements were carried out for each system, including measurements for a complete IMRT treatment. The reproducibility of dynamic delivery and the characteristics of the accelerator for low-monitor-unit (MU) deliveries were also assessed. An extensive quality assurance (QA) program was performed for each of the patients. Additionally, timing measurements were carried out to assess the practicalities of the technique. Results: The planning objectives were met in most cases. Absolute doses for complete IMRT treatments were within 2%, on average, with dose distributions generally showing agreement within 3% or 3 mm. Beam modulation measurements made throughout each patient's treatment indicated that both delivery methods were reproducible. The dynamic plans required an average of 765 MU per beam, with a treatment delivery time of 14 min; corresponding results for step-and-shoot plans were 105 MU and 10 min. Conclusions: Two IMRT techniques for this group of patients have been successfully implemented in the clinic. The more complex dynamic treatments showed no advantages over the step-and-shoot approach. QA results have shown accurate and reproducible delivery for both techniques, giving increased confidence in the techniques and allowing a reduction in the QA program. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved

Radiotherapy for prostate cancer: is it ‘what you do’ or ‘the way that you do it’? A UK perspective on technique and quality assurance

Aims: The treatment of prostate cancer has evolved markedly over the last 40 years, including radiotherapy, notably with escalated dose and targeting. However, the optimal treatment for localised disease has not been established in comparative randomised trials. The aim of this article is to describe the history of prostate radiotherapy trials, including their quality assurance processes, and to compare these with the ProtecT trial. Materials and methods: The UK ProtecT randomised trial compares external beam conformal radiotherapy, surgery and active monitoring for clinically localised prostate cancer and will report on the primary outcome (disease-specific mortality) in 2016 following recruitment between 1999 and 2009. The embedded quality assurance programme consists of on-site machine dosimetry at the nine trial centres, a retrospective review of outlining and adherence to dose constraints based on the trial protocol in 54 participants (randomly selected, around 10% of the total randomised to radiotherapy, n = 545). These quality assurance processes and results were compared with prostate radiotherapy trials of a comparable era. Results: There has been an increasingly sophisticated quality assurance programme in UK prostate radiotherapy trials over the last 15 years, reflecting dose escalation and treatment complexity. In ProtecT, machine dosimetry results were comparable between trial centres and with the UK RT01 trial. The outlining review showed that most deviations were clinically acceptable, although three (1.4%) may have been of clinical significance and were related to outlining of the prostate. Seminal vesicle outlining varied, possibly due to several prostate trials running concurrently with different protocols. Adherence to dose constraints in ProtecT was considered acceptable, with 80% of randomised participants having two or less deviations and planning target volume coverage was excellent. Conclusion: The ProtecT trial quality assurance results were satisfactory and comparable with trials of its era. Future trials should aim to standardise treatment protocols and quality assurance programmes where possible to reduce complexities for centres involved in multiple trials