Whole-pelvic volumetric-modulated arc therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: treatment planning and acute toxicity

Ishii, Kentaro; Ogino, Ryo; Hosokawa, Yukinari; Fujioka, Chiaki; Okada, Wataru; Nakahara, Ryuta; Kawamorita, Ryu; Tada, Takuhito; Hayashi, Yoshiki; Nakajima, Toshifumi

doi:10.1093/jrr/rru086

Cited by 15 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the current study, there was no correlation between the acute toxicity and the dosimetric parameters. The same finding was also observed by other investigators [29] [32] and [33]. This lack of correlation between toxicity and dosimetric variables could be due to the low dosimetric parameters and low frequencies of the severe acute toxicities.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of Acute Toxicity and Dosimetric Parameters in High Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated by High Radiation Doses

Daoud¹,

Saleh²,

Elsherbini³

et al. 2019

JCT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For high risk prostate cancer, the treatment volumes and even dose levels are still a controversial issue. The aim of this study is to evaluate the dosemetric parameters and acute toxicity of dose-escalated whole pelvis (WP) Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) prostate boost following neoadjuvant and concomitant with androgen deprivation therapy in high-risk prostate cancer patients. This analysis included 73 high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with WP-IMRT followed by boost to the prostate by VMAT to total dose of 80 Gy; between January 2014 and October 2016. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) was given for all patients before and during radiation therapy. Drawing the dose volume histograms (DVHs) was done for planning target volumes (PTVs), including Prostate PTV & nodal PTV, and organs at risk including rectum, bladder, femoral heads, and bowel bag for the plans. Acute radiation toxicities were reported during the radiation course and the following 3 months. The DVH analysis showed good coverage of PTVs and organs at risk doses were acceptable. No recorded acute Grade ≥ 3 toxicity. Acute grade 1 toxicity for Gastrointestinal (GI) and Genitourinary (GU) were 65% and 35% respectively, while Grade 2 toxicity was 30% for both. The Proctitis and frequency were the commonest acute toxicity and were maximal during the 5th week of radiation therapy. Dose escalation in two phases utilizing Simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) combined with ADT in high risk prostate cancer patient is feasible and associated with acceptable acute GI and GU toxicity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Also, Deville et al, [28] reported 50% grade II toxicity for both GI and GT. On the other hand, Ishii et al, [29] [31]. Therefore, the acceptably low incidence of acute toxicity in the current study might contribute to decreasing the late side effects in further follow-up.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

Evaluation of Acute Toxicity and Dosimetric Parameters in High Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated by High Radiation Doses

Daoud¹,

Saleh²,

Elsherbini³

et al. 2019

JCT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although several recent studies have reported early clinical results of VMAT for prostate cancer, [12][13][14] to the best of our knowledge, there are no published clinical studies comparing WP VMAT with PO VMAT. Therefore, there is a need to demonstrate whether the use of WPRT could result in increased toxicity when VMAT is performed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of dosimetric parameters and acute toxicity after whole-pelvicvsprostate-only volumetric-modulated arc therapy with daily image guidance for prostate cancer

Ishii¹,

Ogino²,

Hosokawa³

et al. 2016

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results: The mean rectal dose, the rectal volume receiving $30 Gy (V 30Gy ), rectal V 50Gy, the mean bladder dose, bladder V 30Gy and bladder V 50Gy were significantly increased in the WP group (p , 0.05 each); however, the rectal V 70Gy did not differ between groups (p 5 0.101), and the bladder V 70Gy was significantly lower in the WP group (p 5 0.029). The WP group experienced a significantly increased frequency of acute grade 2 diarrhoea relative to the PO group (5.9% vs 0%; p 5 0.015). No differences were seen between the WP and PO groups in terms of acute grade 2 proctitis (10.1% vs 6.7%; p 5 0.360) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity (12.6% vs 10.5%; p 5 0.620). Conclusion: Despite larger rectum and bladder volumes at low-and medium-dose levels, WP VMAT resulted in no significant increase in acute proctitis or GU toxicity when compared with PO VMAT. Advances in knowledge: This study demonstrates that whole-pelvic radiotherapy has comparable acute toxicity to those observed with prostate-only radiotherapy when VMAT with daily image guidance is used.

show abstract

“…Pelvic lymph nodes, prostate, and seminal vesicles were treated by 5 authors 62 , 64 , 66 – 68 using a single- to triple-arc technique, with doses ranging from 46.8 Gy for nodal coverage to 78 Gy for prostate irradiation. Almost all used IG as kV or CBCT, and ~335 patients were treated from 2012 to 2016.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Volumetric modulated arc therapy for treatment of solid tumors: current insights

Macchia¹,

Deodato²,

Cilla³

et al. 2017

OTT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimThis article discusses the current use of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques in clinical practice and reviews the available data from clinical outcome studies in different clinical settings. An overview of available literature about clinical outcomes with VMAT stereotactic/radiosurgical treatment is also reported.Materials and methodsAll published manuscripts reporting the use of VMAT in a clinical setting from 2009 to November 2016 were identified. The search was carried out in December 2016 using the National Library of Medicine (PubMed/Medline). The following words were searched: “volumetric arc therapy”[All Fields] OR “vmat”[All Fields] OR “rapidarc”[All Fields], AND “radiotherapy”[All Fields] AND “Clinical Trial”[All Fields].ResultsOverall, 37 studies (21 prospective and 16 retrospective) fulfilling inclusion criteria and thus included in the review evaluated 2,029 patients treated with VMAT; of these patients, ~30.8% had genitourinary (GU) tumors (81% prostate, 19% endometrial), 26.2% head-and-neck cancer (H&NC), 13.9% oligometastases, 11.2% had anorectal cancer, 10.6% thoracic neoplasms (81% breast, 19% lung), and 7.0% brain metastases (BMs). Six different clinical scenarios for VMAT use were identified: 1) BMs, 2) H&NC, 3) thoracic neoplasms, 4) GU cancer, 5) anorectal tumor, and 6) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) performed by VMAT technique in the oligometastatic patient setting.ConclusionThe literature addressing the clinical appropriateness of VMAT is scarce. Current literature suggests that VMAT, especially when used as simultaneous integrated boost or SBRT strategy, is an effective safe modality for all cancer types.

show abstract

Whole-pelvic volumetric-modulated arc therapy for high-risk prostate cancer: treatment planning and acute toxicity

Cited by 15 publications

References 42 publications

Evaluation of Acute Toxicity and Dosimetric Parameters in High Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated by High Radiation Doses

Evaluation of Acute Toxicity and Dosimetric Parameters in High Risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated by High Radiation Doses

Comparison of dosimetric parameters and acute toxicity after whole-pelvicvsprostate-only volumetric-modulated arc therapy with daily image guidance for prostate cancer

Volumetric modulated arc therapy for treatment of solid tumors: current insights

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About