4.7 Article

PARAMETERS FAVORABLE TO INTRAPROSTATIC RADIATION DOSE ESCALATION IN MEN WITH LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.06.050

Keywords

IMRT; Prostate cancer; Dose escalation; Radiotherapy; Treatment planning

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research
  2. NIH
  3. Pfizer Inc

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To identify, within the framework of a current Phase I trial, whether factors related to intraprostatic cancer lesions (IPLs) or individual patients predict the feasibility of high-dose intraprostatic irradiation. Methods and Materials: Endorectal coil MRI scans of the prostate from 42 men were evaluated for dominant IPLs. The IPLs, prostate, and critical normal tissues were contoured. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans were generated with the goal of delivering 75.6 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions to the prostate, with IPLs receiving a simultaneous integrated boost of 3.6 Gy per fraction to a total dose of 151.2 Gy, 200% of the prescribed dose and the highest dose cohort in our trial. Rectal and bladder dose constraints were consistent with those outlined in current Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocols. Results: Dominant IPLs were identified in 24 patients (57.1%). Simultaneous integrated boosts (SIB) to 200% of the prescribed dose were achieved in 12 of the 24 patients without violating dose constraints. Both the distance between the IPL and rectum and the hip-to-hip patient width on planning CT scans were associated with the feasibility to plan an SIB (p = 0.002 and p = 0.0137, respectively). Conclusions: On the basis of this small cohort, the distance between an intraprostatic lesion and the rectum most strongly predicted the ability to plan high-dose radiation to a dominant intraprostatic lesion. High-dose SIB planning seems possible for select intraprostatic lesions. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available