SU-FF-T-574: Radiotherapy Treatment Plans with RapidArc for Prostate Cancer Involving Seminal Vesicles

2009 ◽  
Vol 36 (6Part18) ◽  
pp. 2656-2656
Author(s):  
S Yoo ◽  
Q Wu ◽  
W Lee ◽  
F Yin
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Seminal Vesicles ◽  
Treatment Plans ◽  
Radiotherapy Treatment

Dosimetric evaluation of whole-pelvis radiation therapy of prostate cancers: clinical experience

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Ernest Osei ◽  
Hafsa Mansoor ◽  
Johnson Darko ◽  
Beverley Osei ◽  
Katrina Fleming ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Seminal Vesicles ◽  
Conformity Index ◽  
Prostate Bed ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Treatment Plans ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background: The standard treatment modalities for prostate cancer include surgery, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy and radiation therapy or any combination depending on the stage of the tumour. Radiation therapy is a common and effective treatment modality for low-intermediate-risk patients with localised prostate cancer, to treat the intact prostate and seminal vesicles or prostate bed post prostatectomy. However, for high-risk patients with lymph node involvement, treatment with radiation will usually include treatment of the whole pelvis to cover the prostate and seminal vesicles or prostate bed and the pelvic lymph nodes followed by a boost delivery dose to the prostate and seminal vesicles or prostate bed. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analysed the treatment plans for 179 prostate cancer patients treated at the cancer centre with the volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique via RapidArc using 6 MV photon beam. Patients were either treated with a total prescription dose of 78 Gy in 39 fractions for patients with intact prostate or 66 Gy in 33 fractions for post prostatectomy patients. Results: There were 114 (64%) patients treated with 78 Gy/39 and 65 (36%) treated with 66 Gy/34. The mean homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) and uniformity index (UI) for the PTV-primary of patients treated with 78 Gy are 0.06 ± 0.01, 1.04 ± 0.01 and 0.99 ± 0.01, respectively, and the corresponding mean values for patients treated with 66 Gy are 0.06 ± 0.02, 1.05 ± 0.01 and 0.99 ± 0.01, respectively. The mean PTV-primary V95%, V100% and V105% are 99.5 ± 0.5%, 78.8 ± 12.2% and 0.1 ± 0.5%, respectively, for patients treated with 78 Gy and 99.3 ± 0.9%, 78.1 ± 10.6% and 0.1 ± 0.4%, respectively, for patients treated with 66 Gy. The rectal V50Gy, V65Gy, V66.6Gy, V70Gy, V75Gy and V80Gy are 26.8 ± 9.1%, 14.2 ± 5.3%, 13.1 ± 5.0%, 10.8 ± 4.3%, 6.9 ± 3.1% and 0.1 ± 0.1%, respectively, for patients treated with 78 Gy and 33.7 ± 8.4%, 14.1 ± 4.5%, 6.7 ± 4.5%, 0.0 ± 0.2%, 0.0% and 0.0%, respectively, for patients treated with 66 Gy. Conclusion: The use of VMAT technique for radiation therapy of high-risk prostate cancer patients is an efficient and reliable method for achieving superior dose conformity, uniformity and homogeneity to the PTV and minimal doses to the organs at risk. Results from this study provide the basis for the development and implementation of consistent treatment criteria in radiotherapy programs, have the potential to establish an evaluation process to define a consistent, standardised and transparent treatment path for all patients that reduces significant variations in the acceptability of treatment plans and potentially improve patient standard of care.

Prostate cancer

2019 ◽  
pp. 224-262
Author(s):  
Linus Benjamin ◽  
Alison Tree ◽  
David Dearnaley
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Treatment Outcome ◽  
Palliative Radiotherapy ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
Seminal Vesicles ◽  
Radiotherapy Planning ◽  
Radical Radiotherapy ◽  
Future Developments ◽  
Radiotherapy Treatment

Chapter 10 discusses prostate cancer and includes discussion on indications including radical radiotherapy to prostate ± seminal vesicles, pelvic radiotherapy, post-prostatectomy radiotherapy, palliative radiotherapy to prostate ± pelvis, palliative radiotherapy to metastases, and breast bud radiotherapy for the prevention or treatment of gynaecomastia, radical radiotherapy planning, target volume definition , dose distribution, implementation, verification, dose prescription, toxicity and care during treatment, the role of hormonal therapy in combination with radical radiotherapy, treatment outcome, and future developments.

Sequential or concomitant radiotherapy treatment for patients with localized prostate cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17610-e17610
Author(s):  
Ramachandran Venkitaraman ◽  
Lakshmi Harihar ◽  
Muhammad Sabar ◽  
Christopher D. Scrase
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Seminal Vesicles ◽  
Concomitant Treatment ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Gi Toxicity ◽  
Biochemical Progression ◽  
Two Phases ◽  
Radiotherapy Treatment ◽  
Concomitant Radiotherapy

e17610 Background: External Beam radiotherapy is a standard treatment for patients with intermediate risk localised prostate cancer. Commonly the radiotherapy plan is delivered in two phases with adequate margins, the first phase to the prostate and seminal vesicles and the second phase to the prostate alone. The two phases can be delivered by intensity modulated radiotherapy as a sequential or concomitant treatment. We compared the toxicities and clinical outcomes of patients who received radiotherapy either as sequential or as concomitant treatment. Methods: Two hundred and twenty five consecutive patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer were included in the study. The patients who had sequential treatment received 60 Gy in 30 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles,, while patients who had concomitant treatment received 60 Gy in 37 fractions. All patients received 74 Gy in 37 fractions to the prostate. The Genitourinary (GU) and Gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity data and outcomes in terms of biochemical progression free survival were compared. Results: One hundred eighty patients received sequential radiotherapy, while forty five patients received concomitant radiotherapy. Acute GI toxicity was significantly less in the patients who received concomitant radiotherapy, during weeks four(p = 0.03), six(p = 0.03) and eight(p = 0.06) of treatment, compared to patients who receive sequential radiotherapy. Acute GU toxicities were similar in both groups of patients during treatment. Late GU and GI toxicity at 1 year and 2 years were similar. 3 year biochemical Progression free survival was 90 % for patients who received either sequential compared to 75 % for patients who received concomitant radiotherapy, though not statistically significant (log rank p value = 0.173). Conclusions: Concomitant radiotherapy to prostate and seminal vesicles resulted in lower acute gastrointestinal toxicity compared to sequential radiotherapy to the prostate and seminal vesicles as two phases. The genitourinary and late toxicities were similar. Biochemical progression free survival for patients who received concomitant radiotherapy treatment, could however be inferior to sequential treatment, probably due to the lower dose per fraction to the seminal vesicles and margins.

scholarly journals Dosimetric comparison of MR-linac-based IMRT and conventional VMAT treatment plans for prostate cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanessa Da Silva Mendes ◽  
Lukas Nierer ◽  
Minglun Li ◽  
Stefanie Corradini ◽  
Michael Reiner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Target Volume ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Target Coverage ◽  
Treatment Delivery ◽  
Ptv Margin ◽  
Delivery Times ◽  
Low Field ◽  
Treatment Plans

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the performance of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans, planned for low-field strength magnetic resonance (MR) guided linear accelerator (linac) delivery (labelled IMRT MRL plans), and clinical conventional volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans, for the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). Both plans used the original planning target volume (PTV) margins. Additionally, the potential dosimetric benefits of MR-guidance were estimated, by creating IMRT MRL plans using smaller PTV margins. Materials and methods 20 PCa patients previously treated with conventional VMAT were considered. For each patient, two different IMRT MRL plans using the low-field MR-linac treatment planning system were created: one with original (orig.) PTV margins and the other with reduced (red.) PTV margins. Dose indices related to target coverage, as well as dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters for the target and organs at risk (OAR) were compared. Additionally, the estimated treatment delivery times and the number of monitor units (MU) of each plan were evaluated. Results The dose distribution in the high dose region and the target volume DVH parameters (D98%, D50%, D2% and V95%) were similar for all three types of treatment plans, with deviations below 1% in most cases. Both IMRT MRL plans (orig. and red. PTV margins) showed similar homogeneity indices (HI), however worse values for the conformity index (CI) were also found when compared to VMAT. The IMRT MRL plans showed similar OAR sparing when the orig. PTV margins were used but a significantly better sparing was feasible when red. PTV margins were applied. Higher number of MU and longer predicted treatment delivery times were seen for both IMRT MRL plans. Conclusions A comparable plan quality between VMAT and IMRT MRL plans was achieved, when applying the same PTV margin. However, online MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy allows for a reduction of PTV margins. With a red. PTV margin, better sparing of the surrounding tissues can be achieved, while maintaining adequate target coverage. Nonetheless, longer treatment delivery times, characteristic for the IMRT technique, have to be expected.

scholarly journals Outcomes of Peer Review for Radiotherapy Treatment Plans With Palliative Intent

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (12) ◽  
pp. e794-e800
Author(s):  
Dina Thompson ◽  
Kimberly Cox ◽  
James Loudon ◽  
Ivan Yeung ◽  
Woodrow Wells
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Palliative Radiotherapy ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Palliative Intent ◽  
Treatment Plans ◽  
Important Quality ◽  
Radiation Medicine ◽  
Radiotherapy Treatment

Purpose: Peer review of a proposed treatment plan is increasingly recognized as an important quality activity in radiation medicine. Although peer review has been emphasized in the curative setting, applying peer review for treatment plans that have palliative intent is receiving increased attention. This study reports peer review outcomes for a regional cancer center that applied routine interprofessional peer review as a standard practice for palliative radiotherapy. Methods and Materials: Peer review outcomes for palliative radiotherapy plans were recorded prospectively for patients who began radiotherapy between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2017. Recommended and implemented changes were recorded. The content of detailed discussions was recorded to gain insight into the complexities of palliative treatment plans considered during peer review. Results: Peer review outcomes were reviewed for 1,413 treatment plans with palliative intent. The proportions of detailed discussions and changes recommended were found to be 139 (9.8%) and 29 (2.1%), respectively. The content of detailed discussions and changes recommended was categorized. Major changes represented 75.9% of recommended changes, of which 84.2% were implemented clinically. Conclusion: Many complexities exist that are specific to palliative radiotherapy. Interprofessional peer review provides a forum for these complexities to be openly discussed and is an important activity to optimize the quality of care for patients with treatment plans that have palliative intent.

Practical aspects and uncertainty analysis of biological effective dose (BED) regarding its three-dimensional calculation in multiphase radiotherapy treatment plans

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (7) ◽  
pp. 071707 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin I. Kauweloa ◽  
Alonso N. Gutierrez ◽  
Angelo Bergamo ◽  
Sotirios Stathakis ◽  
Nikos Papanikolaou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Uncertainty Analysis ◽  
Effective Dose ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Biological Effective Dose ◽  
Treatment Plans ◽  
Radiotherapy Treatment

Social support and quality of life of prostate cancer patients after radiotherapy treatment

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.A. QUEENAN ◽  
D. FELDMAN-STEWART ◽  
M. BRUNDAGE ◽  
P.A. GROOME
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Social Support ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Radiotherapy Treatment
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document