CLINICAL APPLICATION OF HIGH-DOSE, IMAGE-GUIDED INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIOTHERAPY IN HIGH-RISK PROSTATE CANCER

被引:23
|
作者
Bayley, Andrew [1 ]
Rosewall, Tara
Craig, Tim
Bristow, Rob
Chung, Peter
Gospodarowicz, Mary
Menard, Cynthia
Milosevic, Michael
Warde, Padraig
Catton, Charles
机构
[1] Princess Margaret Hosp, Radiat Med Program, Toronto, ON M5G 2M9, Canada
来源
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS | 2010年 / 77卷 / 02期
关键词
Dose escalation; Pelvic radiotherapy; Prostate cancer; Intensity modulated radiation therapy; Toxicity; CONFORMAL RADIATION-THERAPY; ANDROGEN SUPPRESSION; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; FIDUCIAL MARKERS; ACUTE TOXICITY; WHOLE-PELVIS; ESCALATION; NEOADJUVANT; IRRADIATION; CARCINOMA;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.05.006
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: To report the feasibility and early toxicity of dose-escalated image-guided IMRT to the pelvic lymph nodes (LN), prostate (P), and seminal vesicles (SV). Methods and Materials: A total of 103 high-risk prostate cancer patients received two-phase, dose-escalated, image-guided IMRT with 3 years of androgen deprivation therapy. Clinical target volumes (CTVs) were delineated using computed tomography/magnetic resonance co-registration and included the prostate, portions of the SV, and the LN. Planning target volume margins (PTV) used were as follows: P (10 mm, 7 mm posteriorly), SV (10 mm), and LN (5 mm). Organs at risk (OaR) were the rectal and bladder walls, femoral heads, and large and small bowel. The IMRT was planned with an intended dose of 55.1 Gy in 29 fractions to all CTVs (Phase 1), with P+SV consecutive boost of 24.7 Gy in 13 fractions. Daily online image guidance was performed using bony landmarks and intraprostatic markers. Feasibility criteria included delivery of intended doses in 80% of patients, 95% of CTV displacements incorporated within PTV during Phase 1, and acute toxicity rate comparable to that of lower-dose pelvic techniques. Results: A total of 91 patients (88%) received the total prescription dose. All patients received at least 72 Gy. In Phase 1, 63 patients (61%) received the intended 55.1 Gy, whereas 87% of patients received at least 50 Gy. Dose reductions were caused by small bowel and rectal wall constraints. All CTVs received the planned dose in >95% of treatment fractions. There were no Radiation Therapy Oncology Group acute toxicities greater than Grade 3, although there were five incidences equivalent to Grade 3 within a median follow-up of 23 months. Conclusion: These results suggest that dose escalation to the PLN+P+SV using IMRT is feasible, with acceptable rates of acute toxicity. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:477 / 483
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Image-guided dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: treating to doses beyond 78 Gy
    Eade, Thomas N.
    Guo, Linxin
    Forde, Elizabeth
    Vaux, Ken
    Vass, Justin
    Hunt, Peter
    Kneebone, Andrew
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2012, 109 (11) : 1655 - 1660
  • [42] Prospective evaluation of quality of life 54 months after high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer
    Goineau, Aurore
    Marchand, Virginie
    Rigaud, Jerome
    Bourdin, Sylvain
    Rio, Emmanuel
    Campion, Loic
    Bonnaud-Antignac, Angelique
    Mahe, Marc-Andre
    Supiot, Stephane
    RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2013, 8
  • [43] New technological aspects of irradiation for prostate cancer. Techniques of image-guided and intensity-modulated radiotherapy
    Ganswindt, U.
    Bamberg, M.
    Belka, C.
    ONKOLOGE, 2007, 13 (08): : 710 - 717
  • [44] Radiotherapy Quality Assurance for the CHHiP Trial: Conventional Versus Hypofractionated High-Dose Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer
    Naismith, O.
    Mayles, H.
    Bidmead, M.
    Clark, C. H.
    Gulliford, S.
    Hassan, S.
    Khoo, V
    Roberts, K.
    South, C.
    Hall, E.
    Dearnaley, D.
    CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2019, 31 (09) : 611 - 620
  • [45] Feasibility of intensity-modulated and image-guided radiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer
    Nguyen, Nam P.
    Jang, Siyoung
    Vock, Jacqueline
    Vincent Vinh-Hung
    Chi, Alexander
    Vos, Paul
    Pugh, Judith
    Vo, Richard A.
    Ceizyk, Misty
    Desai, Anand
    Smith-Raymond, Lexie
    BMC CANCER, 2014, 14
  • [46] Patient reported toxicity and quality of life after hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for intermediate- and high risk prostate cancer
    Houben, Jeroen
    McColl, Gill
    Kaanders, Johannes Ham
    Smeenk, Robert J.
    CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL RADIATION ONCOLOGY, 2021, 29 : 40 - 46
  • [47] Phase I study of concurrent weekly docetaxel, high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk prostate cancer
    Chen, Ronald C.
    Rosenman, Julian G.
    Hoffman, Leroy G.
    Chiu, Wing-Keung
    Wang, Andrew Z.
    Pruthi, Raj S.
    Wallen, Eric M.
    Crane, Jeffrey M.
    Kim, William Y.
    Rathmell, W. Kimryn
    Godley, Paul A.
    Whang, Young E.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2012, 110 (11B) : E721 - E726
  • [48] Intensity-modulated pelvic radiation therapy and simultaneous integrated boost to the prostate area in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: a preliminary report of disease control
    Saracino, Biancamaria
    Petrongari, Maria Grazia
    Marzi, Simona
    Bruzzaniti, Vicente
    Sara, Gomellini
    Arcangeli, Stefano
    Arcangeli, Giorgio
    Pinnaro, Paola
    Giordano, Carolina
    Ferraro, Anna Maria
    Strigari, Lidia
    CANCER MEDICINE, 2014, 3 (05): : 1313 - 1321
  • [49] Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer
    Fischer-Valuck, Ben W.
    Rao, Yuan James
    Michalski, Jeff M.
    TRANSLATIONAL ANDROLOGY AND UROLOGY, 2018, 7 (03) : 297 - 307
  • [50] Stamp Test Delivers Message on Erectile Dysfunction After High-dose Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer
    Keller, Lanea M. M.
    Buyyounouski, Mark K.
    Sopka, Dennis
    Ruth, Karen
    Klayton, Tracy
    Pollack, Alan
    Watkins-Bruner, Deborah
    Greenberg, Richard
    Price, Robert
    Horwitz, Eric M.
    UROLOGY, 2012, 80 (02) : 337 - 342