Passive proton therapy vs. IMRT planning study with focal boost for prostate cancer

13Citations
Citations of this article
36Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Exploiting biologic imaging, studies have been performed to boost dose to gross intraprostatic tumor volumes (GTV) while reducing dose elsewhere in the prostate. Interest in proton beams has increased due to superior normal-tissue sparing they afford. Our goal was to dosimetrically compare 3D conformal proton boost plans with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans with respect to target coverage and avoiding organs at risk. Methods: Treatment planning computer tomography scans of ten patients were selected. For each patient, two hypothetical but realistic GTVs each with a fixed volume were contoured in different anatomical locations of the prostate. IMRT and proton beam plans were created with a prescribed dose of 50.4Gy to the initial planning target volume (PTV) including the PTV of the seminal vesicles (PSV), 70.2Gy to the PTV of the prostate (PPS), and 90Gy to the PTV of the gross tumor volumes (PGTVs). For proton plans, uncertainties of range and patient setup were accounted for; apertures were adjusted until the dose-volume coverage of PTVs matched that of the IMRT plan. For both plans, prescribed PTV doses were made identical to allow for comparing normal-tissue doses. Results: Protons delivered more homogeneous but less conformal doses to PGTVs than IMRT did and comparable doses to PSV and PPS. Volumes of bladder and rectum receiving doses higher than 65Gy were similar for both plans. However, volumes receiving less than 65Gy were significantly reduced, i.e., protons reduced integral dose by 45.6% and 26.5% for rectum and bladder, respectively. This volume-sparing was also seen in femoral heads and penile bulb. Conclusions: Protons delivered comparable doses to targets in dose homogeneity and conformity and spared normal tissues from intermediate-to-low doses better than IMRT did. Further improvement of dose sparing and changes in homogeneity and conformity may be achieved by reducing proton range uncertainties and from implementing intensity modulation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yeo, I., Nookala, P., Gordon, I., Schulte, R., Barnes, S., Ghebremedhin, A., … Patyal, B. (2015). Passive proton therapy vs. IMRT planning study with focal boost for prostate cancer. Radiation Oncology, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0522-5

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free