We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Feasibility of dominant intraprostatic lesion boosting using advanced photon-, proton- or brachytherapy.
Radiotherapy and Oncology 2015 December
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Advancements in imaging and dose delivery enable boosting of the dominant intraprostatic lesions (DIL), while maintaining organs-at-risk (OAR) tolerances. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of DIL boosting for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: DILs were defined on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fused with planning CT for twelve patients. VMAT, IMPT and HDR-BT plans were created for each patient with an EQD2(α/β) DIL aimed at 111.6 Gy, PTV(initial) D(pres) was 80.9 Gy (EBRT) with CTV D90%=81.9 Gy (HDR-BT). Hard dose constraints were applied for OARs.
RESULTS: Higher boost doses were achieved with IMPT compared to VMAT, keeping major OAR doses at similar levels. Patient averaged EQD2(α/β) D50% to DIL were 110.7, 114.2 and 150.1 Gy(IsoE) for VMAT, IMPT and HDR-BT, respectively. Respective rectal wall D(mean) were 30.5±5.0, 16.7±3.6, 9.5±2.5 Gy(IsoE) and bladder wall D(mean) were 21.0±5.5, 15.6±4.3 and 6.3±2.2 Gy(IsoE).
CONCLUSIONS: DIL boosting was found to be feasible with all investigated techniques. Although OAR doses were higher than for standard treatment approach, the risk levels were reasonably low. HDR-BT was superior to VMAT and IMPT, both in terms of OAR sparing and DIL boosting.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: DILs were defined on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fused with planning CT for twelve patients. VMAT, IMPT and HDR-BT plans were created for each patient with an EQD2(α/β) DIL aimed at 111.6 Gy, PTV(initial) D(pres) was 80.9 Gy (EBRT) with CTV D90%=81.9 Gy (HDR-BT). Hard dose constraints were applied for OARs.
RESULTS: Higher boost doses were achieved with IMPT compared to VMAT, keeping major OAR doses at similar levels. Patient averaged EQD2(α/β) D50% to DIL were 110.7, 114.2 and 150.1 Gy(IsoE) for VMAT, IMPT and HDR-BT, respectively. Respective rectal wall D(mean) were 30.5±5.0, 16.7±3.6, 9.5±2.5 Gy(IsoE) and bladder wall D(mean) were 21.0±5.5, 15.6±4.3 and 6.3±2.2 Gy(IsoE).
CONCLUSIONS: DIL boosting was found to be feasible with all investigated techniques. Although OAR doses were higher than for standard treatment approach, the risk levels were reasonably low. HDR-BT was superior to VMAT and IMPT, both in terms of OAR sparing and DIL boosting.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app