Quelle radiothérapie guidée par l’image pour quels patients? Expérience concomitante de l’utilisation de trois dispositifs d’imagerie de repositionnement dans le cas du cancer de la prostate

Delpon, G.; Llagostera, C.; Blanc, Markus Le; Rio, E.; Supiot, S.; Mahé, M.‐A.; Lisbona, A.

doi:10.1016/j.canrad.2009.06.001

Cited by 21 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The percent organ-at risk volume receiving 65 Gy (V65) was derived from dose-volume histograms for bladder and rectal tissue. Patient positioning was checked daily [24]. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective evaluation of quality of life 54 months after high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

Goineau¹,

Marchand²,

Rigaud

et al. 2013

Radiat Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo determine late toxicity and quality of life (QoL) in patients with localized prostate cancer after high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).Patient and methodsThis was a prospective study in patients with localized prostate adenocarcinoma who had been treated by IMRT (76 Gy) between February and November 2006. Physicians scored acute and late toxicity using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 3.0). Patients completed cancer and prostate-specific QoL questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25) before IMRT (baseline) and at 2, 6, 18 and 54 months.ResultData were available for 38 patients (median age, 73 years) (18% low risk; 60% intermediate risk; 32% high risk). The incidence of urinary and gastrointestinal toxicity was respectively: immediately post IMRT: 36.8% and 23.7% (grade 1), 5.3% and 5.3% (grade 2), 2.6% and 0% (grade 3); at 18 months: 23.7% and 10.3% (grade 1), 26.3% and 13.2% (grade 2), 0% and 2.6% (grade 3); at 54 months: 34.2% and 23.7% (grade 1), 5.3% and 15.8% (grade 2), 5.3% and 0% (grade 3). At 54 months, significant worsening was reported by patients for 11/19 QoL items but the worsening was clinically relevant (>10 points) for 7 items only: physical, role as well as social functioning, fatigue, pain, dyspnoea and constipation. There was no significant difference between 54-month and baseline QoL scores for global health, gastrointestinal symptoms, treatment-related symptoms and sexual function. However, there was significant - but clinically non-relevant (<10 points) - worsening of urinary symptom.ConclusionHigh-dose IMRT to the prostate with accurate patient positioning did not induce any clinically relevant worsening in late urinary and gastrointestinal QoL at 54 months. Impaired physical and role functioning may be related to age and comorbidities.

show abstract

“…The percent organ-at risk volume receiving 65 Gy (V65) was derived from dose-volume histograms for bladder and rectal tissue. Patient positioning was checked daily [24]. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective evaluation of quality of life 54 months after high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

Goineau¹,

Marchand²,

Rigaud

et al. 2013

Radiat Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) technology has been widely adopted to provide anatomic information with the patient in the treatment position. With image guidance (typically X-ray imaging such as kilovolt (kV), megavolt (MV), and CBCT), the patient positions in the daily images are registered to the planning images based on either bony landmarks or soft tissues [16–18, 21, 22]. Furthermore, fiducial markers for prostate IGRT have been in use since the 1990s and O’Neill et al reviewed the evidence for the use of fiducial markers in clinical practice [23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrospective study comparing MR-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) setup strategies for prostate treatment: repositioning vs. replanning

Kim

Choi

et al. 2019

Radiat Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study compared adaptive replanning and repositioning corrections based on soft-tissue matching for prostate cancer by using the magnetic resonance-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) system. Methods A total of 19 patients with prostate cancer were selected retrospectively. Weekly magnetic resonance image (MRI) scans were acquired for 5 weeks for each patient to observe the anatomic changes during the treatment course. Initial intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans (iIMRT) were generated for each patient with 13 coplanar 60 Co beams on a ViewRay™ system. Two techniques were applied: patient repositioning and replanning. For patient repositioning, one plan was created: soft-tissue (prostate) matching ( Soft ). The dose distribution was calculated for each MRI with the beam delivery parameters from the initial IMRT plan. The replanning technique was used to generate the Adaptive plan, which was the reoptimized plan for the weekly MRI. The dose-volumetric parameters of the planning target volume (PTV), bladder, and rectum were calculated for all plans. During the treatment course, the PTV, bladder, and rectum were evaluated for changes in volume and the effect on dosimetric parameters. The differences between the dose-volumetric parameters of the plans were examined through the Wilcoxon test. The initial plan was used as a baseline to compare the differences. Results The Adaptive plan showed better target coverage during the treatment period, but the change was not significant in the Soft plan. There were significant differences in D 98% , D 95% , and D 2% in PTV between the Soft and Adaptive plans ( p < 0.05) except for D mean . There was no significant change in D max and D mean as the treatment progressed with all plans. All indices for the Adaptive plan stayed the same compared to those of iIMRT during the treatment course. There were significant differences in D 15% , D 25% , D 35% , and D 50% in the bladder between the Soft and Adaptive plans. The Adaptive plan showed the worse dose sparing than the Soft plan for the bladder according to each dosimetric index. In contrast to the bladder, the Adaptive plan achieved better sparing than the Soft plan during the treatment course. The significant differences were only observed in D 15% ...

show abstract

“…Les modalités de la radiothérapie guidée par l'image sont très variées et incluent un repositionnement par imagerie par rayons X quotidien, voire pendant l'irradiation, avec ou sans mise en place de marqueurs fiduciaires, la tomodensitométrie conique (CBCT, MVCT), l'échographie, ou encore la mise en place de transpondeurs à l'intérieur ou proches de la zone traitée [10,11]. La fréquence de réalisation de ces contrôles n'est pas déterminée avec certitude.…”

Section: Outils Techniques De L'hypofractionnementunclassified

Radiothérapie hypofractionnée : quelles sont les règles à suivre ?

Supiot

Clément-Colmou

Pâris

et al. 2015

Cancer/Radiothérapie

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quelle radiothérapie guidée par l’image pour quels patients? Expérience concomitante de l’utilisation de trois dispositifs d’imagerie de repositionnement dans le cas du cancer de la prostate

Cited by 21 publications

References 15 publications

Prospective evaluation of quality of life 54 months after high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

Prospective evaluation of quality of life 54 months after high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

Retrospective study comparing MR-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) setup strategies for prostate treatment: repositioning vs. replanning

Radiothérapie hypofractionnée : quelles sont les règles à suivre ?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About