Prostatic Neoplasms: Patel RR

Bice WS, Prestidge BR, Kurtzman SM, Beriwal S, Moran BJ, Patel RR, Rivard MJ, Anonymous00014. · Foundation for Medical Physics Research, San Antonio, TX 78216, USA. · Brachytherapy. · Pubmed #18782682 No free full text.

Abstract: PURPOSE: Published clinical information on the safety and efficacy of (131)Cs implants is limited. We provide consensus recommendations for (131)Cs prostate brachytherapy based on experience to date. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Cesium Advisory Group (CAG) consists of experienced (131)Cs users. Recommendations are based on three clinical trials, one of which has completed accrual and has been published in the peer reviewed literature, and combined CAG experience of more than 1200 (131)Cs implants. RESULTS: We recommend using 1.059cGyh(-1)U(-1) as the dose rate constant for the IsoRay source. The prescription for monotherapy implants is 115Gy and when combined with 45-50Gy external beam it is 85Gy. Suggested individual source strength ranges from 1.6 to 2.2U. The release criterion for (131)Cs implants is 6mRh(-1) at 1m. (131)Cs brachytherapy should be performed differently from (125)I and (103)Pd brachytherapy: source placement is further from the urethra and rectum; the prostate V(150) should be < or =45%; sufficient margins may be obtained while limiting source placement to the capsule or close to the capsule. The increased dose rate may cause degradation of postimplant quantifiers due to edema. However, large variability in the magnitude and rate of resolution of edema make determination of the most representative postoperative imaging time impossible. The CAG recommends postimplant imaging on the day of the implant. Recommended postimplant evaluation goals include prostate D(90) greater than the prescription dose; maintaining D(u)(,30)<140% of the prescription dose and keeping V(r)(,100)<0.5cm(3). CONCLUSION: It was the consensus of the CAG that optimal (131)Cs implants should be performed differently from those performed with (125)I or (103)Pd. Guidelines have been established to allow for safe and effective delivery of (131)Cs prostate brachytherapy.

Aoyama H, Westerly DC, Mackie TR, Olivera GH, Bentzen SM, Patel RR, Jaradat H, Tome WA, Ritter MA, Mehta MP. · Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. · Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. · Pubmed #16458781 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: This study was designed to evaluate the integral dose (ID) received by normal tissue from intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-five radiation treatment plans including IMRT using a conventional linac with both 6 MV (6MV-IMRT) and 20 MV (20MV-IMRT), as well as three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) using 6 MV (6MV-3DCRT) and 20 MV (20MV-3DCRT) and IMRT using tomotherapy (6MV) (Tomo-IMRT), were created for 5 patients with localized prostate cancer. The ID (mean dose x tissue volume) received by normal tissue (NTID) was calculated from dose-volume histograms. RESULTS: The 6MV-IMRT resulted in 5.0% lower NTID than 6MV-3DCRT; 20 MV beam plans resulted in 7.7%-11.2% lower NTID than 6MV-3DCRT. Tomo-IMRT NTID was comparable to 6MV-IMRT. Compared with 6MV-3DCRT, 6MV-IMRT reduced IDs to the rectal wall and penile bulb by 6.1% and 2.7%, respectively. Tomo-IMRT further reduced these IDs by 11.9% and 16.5%, respectively. The 20 MV did not reduce IDs to those structures. CONCLUSIONS: The difference in NTID between 3DCRT and IMRT is small. The 20 MV plans somewhat reduced NTID compared with 6 MV plans. The advantage of tomotherapy over conventional IMRT and 3DCRT for localized prostate cancer was demonstrated in regard to dose sparing of rectal wall and penile bulb while slightly decreasing NTID as compared with 6MV-3DCRT.

Patel RR, Orton N, Tomé WA, Chappell R, Ritter MA. · Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Avenue K4/B100, Madison, WI 53792, USA. · Radiother Oncol. · Pubmed #12865176 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the rectal wall and bladder volume in the high dose region with or without the use of a balloon catheter with both three-dimensional (3D)-conformal and intensity modulated radiation therapy (CRT, IMRT) approaches in the treatment of prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five patients with a wide range of prostate volumes and treated with primary external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer were selected for analysis. Pinnacle treatment plans were generated utilizing a 3D conformal six-field design and an IMRT seven coplanar-field plan with a novel, three-step optimization and with ultrasound localization. Separate plans were devised with a rectal balloon deflated or air inflated with and without inclusion of the seminal vesicles (SV) in the target volume. The prescription dose was 76Gy in 38 fractions of 2Gy each. Cumulative dose-volume histograms (DVHs) were analyzed for the planning target volume (PTV), rectal wall, and bladder with an inflated (60cc air) or deflated balloon with and without SV included. The volumes of rectal wall and bladder above 60, 65, and 70Gy with each treatment approach were evaluated. RESULTS: Daily balloon placement was well-tolerated with good patient positional reproducibility. Inflation of the rectal balloon in all cases resulted in a significant decrease in the absolute volume of rectal wall receiving greater than 60, 65, or 70Gy. The rectal sparing ratio (RSR), consisting of a structure's high dose volume with the catheter inflated, divided by the volume with the catheter deflated, was calculated for each patient with and without seminal vesicle inclusion for 3D-CRT and IMRT. For 3D-CRT, RSRs with SV included were 0.59, 0.59, and 0.56 and with SV excluded were 0.60, 0.58, and 0.54 at doses of greater than 60, 65, and 70Gy, respectively. Similarly, for IMRT, the mean RSRs were 0.59, 0.59, and 0.63 including SV and 0.71, 0.66, and 0.67 excluding SV at these same dose levels, respectively. Averaged over all conditions, inflation of the rectal balloon resulted in a significant reduction in rectal volume receiving > or =65Gy to a mean ratio of 0.61 (P=0.01) or, in other words, a mean fractional high dose rectal sparing of 39%. There was a slight overall increase to 1.13 in the relative volume of bladder receiving at least 65Gy; however, this was not significant (P=0.6). Use of an endorectal balloon with a non-image-guided 3D-CRT plan produced about as much rectal dose sparing as a highly conformal, image-guided IMRT approach without a balloon. However, inclusion of a balloon with IMRT produced further rectal sparing still. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that use of a rectal balloon with a 3D-CRT plan incorporating typical treatment margins will produce significant high dose rectal sparing that is comparable to that achieved by a highly conformal IMRT with ultrasound localization. Further sparing is achieved with the inclusion of a balloon catheter in an IMRT plan. Thus, in addition to a previously reported advantage of prostate immobilization, the use of a rectal displacement balloon during daily treatment results in high dose rectal wall sparing during both modestly and highly conformal radiotherapy. Such sparing could assist in controlling and limiting rectal toxicity during increasingly aggressive dose escalation.