• Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. · Nov 2012

    Comparative Study

    Intensity modulated proton and photon therapy for early prostate cancer with or without transperineal injection of a polyethylen glycol spacer: a treatment planning comparison study.

    • Damien C Weber, Thomas Zilli, Jean Paul Vallee, Michel Rouzaud, Raymond Miralbell, and Luca Cozzi.
    • Department of Radiation Oncology, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland. damien.weber@unige.ch
    • Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2012 Nov 1; 84 (3): e311-8.

    PurposeRectal toxicity is a serious adverse effect in early-stage prostate cancer patients treated with curative radiation therapy (RT). Injecting a spacer between Denonvilliers' fascia increases the distance between the prostate and the anterior rectal wall and may thus decrease the rectal radiation-induced toxicity. We assessed the dosimetric impact of this spacer with advanced delivery RT techniques, including intensity modulated RT (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and intensity modulated proton beam RT (IMPT).Methods And MaterialsEight prostate cancer patients were simulated for RT with or without spacer. Plans were computed for IMRT, VMAT, and IMPT using the Eclipse treatment planning system using both computed tomography spacer+ and spacer- data sets. Prostate ± seminal vesicle planning target volume [PTV] and organs at risk (OARs) dose-volume histograms were calculated. The results were analyzed using dose and volume metrics for comparative planning.ResultsRegardless of the radiation technique, spacer injection decreased significantly the rectal dose in the 60- to 70-Gy range. Mean V(70 Gy) and V(60 Gy) with IMRT, VMAT, and IMPT planning were 5.3 ± 3.3%/13.9 ± 10.0%, 3.9 ± 3.2%/9.7 ± 5.7%, and 5.0 ± 3.5%/9.5 ± 4.7% after spacer injection. Before spacer administration, the corresponding values were 9.8 ± 5.4% (P=.012)/24.8 ± 7.8% (P=.012), 10.1 ± 3.0% (P=.002)/17.9 ± 3.9% (P=.003), and 9.7 ± 2.6% (P=.003)/14.7% ± 2.7% (P=.003). Importantly, spacer injection usually improved the PTV coverage for IMRT. With this technique, mean V(70.2 Gy) (P=.07) and V(74.1 Gy) (P=0.03) were 100 ± 0% to 99.8 ± 0.2% and 99.1 ± 1.2% to 95.8 ± 4.6% with and without Spacer, respectively. As a result of spacer injection, bladder doses were usually higher but not significantly so. Only IMPT managed to decrease the rectal dose after spacer injection for all dose levels, generally with no observed increase to the bladder dose.ConclusionsRegardless of the radiation technique, a substantial decrease of rectal dose was observed after spacer injection for curative RT to the prostate.Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.