scholarly journals Spatial and dosimetric evaluation of residual distortions of prostate and seminal vesicle bed after image‐guided definitive and postoperative radiotherapy of prostate cancer with endorectal balloon

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Levegrün ◽  
Christoph Pöttgen ◽  
Konstantinos Xydis ◽  
Maja Guberina ◽  
Jehad Abu Jawad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Seminal Vesicle ◽  
Postoperative Radiotherapy ◽  
Image Guided ◽  
Endorectal Balloon

scholarly journals Seminal vesicle interfraction displacement and margins in image guided radiotherapy for prostate cancer

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daisy Mak ◽  
Suki Gill ◽  
Roxby Paul ◽  
Alison Stillie ◽  
Annette Haworth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Seminal Vesicle ◽  
Image Guided Radiotherapy ◽  
Image Guided

scholarly journals Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Image-Guided Biopsy to Detect Seminal Vesicle Invasion by Prostate Cancer

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (11) ◽  
pp. 1283-1289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dima Raskolnikov ◽  
Arvin K. George ◽  
Soroush Rais-Bahrami ◽  
Baris Turkbey ◽  
Nabeel A. Shakir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Seminal Vesicle ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Seminal Vesicle Invasion ◽  
Image Guided ◽  
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Guided Biopsy

Residual Seminal Vesicle Displacement in Marker-Based Image-Guided Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer and the Impact on Margin Design

2011 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. 590-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monique H.P. Smitsmans ◽  
Josien de Bois ◽  
Jan-Jakob Sonke ◽  
Charles N. Catton ◽  
David A. Jaffray ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Seminal Vesicle ◽  
Image Guided Radiotherapy ◽  
Image Guided ◽  
The Impact

Exclusive image-guided IMRT versus radical prostatectomy followed by postoperative IMRT for localized prostate cancer: A matched-pair analysis based on risk groups.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 135-135
Author(s):  
Caroline Azelie ◽  
Mélanie Gauthier ◽  
Céline Mirjolet-Didelot ◽  
Luc Cormier ◽  
Etienne Martin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Image Guidance ◽  
Postoperative Radiotherapy ◽  
Biochemical Failure ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Baseline Risk ◽  
Matched Pair ◽  
Image Guided ◽  
Genitourinary Toxicity

135 Background: To investigate whether patients treated for a localized prostate cancer require prior radical prostatectomy followed by postoperative radiotherapy or exclusive radiotherapy, in the modern era of image-guided IMRT. Methods: One hundred and seventy-eight patients with localized prostate cancer were referred for daily on-line exclusive image-guided IMRT (IG-IMRT), while 69 patients were referred for postoperative IMRT without image guidance after radical prostatectomy (RP+IMRT). The patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio according to their baseline risk group before any treatment. Late toxicity was scored using the CTV v3.0 scale. Biochemical failure was defined as a postoperative PSA ≥ 0.1 ng/mL followed by 1 consecutive rise in PSA for the postoperative group of patients and by the Phoenix definition (nadir+2 ng/mL) for the group of patients treated with exclusive radiotherapy. Results: A total of 98 patients were matched (49:49). Thirty patients had a low-risk (30.6%), 62 patients an intermediate risk (63.3%) and 6 patients a high risk (6.1%). In the RP+IMRT group, the median PSA value before radiotherapy in the RP+IMRT group was 0.28 ng/mL [undetectable-6.99]. The median radiation dose in the IG-IMRT group was 77.4Gy [73.0-79.8 Gy] whereas it was 66.0 Gy [31.4-70.3 Gy] in the RP+IMRT group. The duration of the hormones was similar in both groups (p= 0.438). From the start of any treatment, the median follow-up was 56.6 months (95% CI = [49.6-61.2], range [18.2-115.1]. No patients had late gastrointestinal grade ≥ 2 toxicity in the IG-IMRT group vs. 4% in the RP+IMRT group. Forty-two percent of the patients in both groups had late grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicity. The 5-year freedom from biochemical failure rates in the IG-IMRT group and in the RP+IMRT groups were 93.1% [80.0-97.8] and 76.5% [58.3-87.5], respectively (p= 0.031). Conclusions: Patients with localized prostate cancer treated with IG-IMRT had a better oncological outcome than patients treated with RP+IMRT. Further improvements in postoperative IMRT using image guidance and dose escalation need to be evaluated to determine whether it could eventually be superior to IG-IMRT.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document