Blog
About

2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Interfraction variation and dosimetric changes during image-guided radiation therapy in prostate cancer patients

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          The aim of this study was to identify volume changes and dose variations of rectum and bladder during radiation therapy in prostate cancer (PC) patients.

          Materials and Methods

          We analyzed 20 patients with PC treated with helical tomotherapy. Daily image guidance was performed. We re-contoured the entire bladder and rectum including its contents as well as the organ walls on megavoltage computed tomography once a week. Dose variations were analyzed by means of Dmedian, Dmean, Dmax, V 10 to V 75, as well as the organs at risk (OAR) volume. Further, we investigated the correlation between volume changes and changes in Dmean of OAR.

          Results

          During treatment, the rectal volume ranged from 62% to 223% of its initial volume, the bladder volume from 22% to 375%. The average Dmean ranged from 87% to 118% for the rectum and 58% to 160% for the bladder. The Pearson correlation coefficients between volume changes and corresponding changes in Dmean were -0.82 for the bladder and 0.52 for the rectum. The comparison of the dose wall histogram (DWH) and the dose volume histogram (DVH) showed that the DVH underestimates the percentage of the rectal and bladder volume exposed to the high dose region.

          Conclusion

          Relevant variations in the volume of OAR and corresponding dose variations can be observed. For the bladder, an increase in the volume generally leads to lower doses; for the rectum, the correlation is weaker. Having demonstrated remarkable differences in the dose distribution of the DWH and the DVH, the use of DWHs should be considered.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors.

          We sought to identify determinants of health-related quality of life after primary treatment of prostate cancer and to measure the effects of such determinants on satisfaction with the outcome of treatment in patients and their spouses or partners. We prospectively measured outcomes reported by 1201 patients and 625 spouses or partners at multiple centers before and after radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy, or external-beam radiotherapy. We evaluated factors that were associated with changes in quality of life within study groups and determined the effects on satisfaction with the treatment outcome. Adjuvant hormone therapy was associated with worse outcomes across multiple quality-of-life domains among patients receiving brachytherapy or radiotherapy. Patients in the brachytherapy group reported having long-lasting urinary irritation, bowel and sexual symptoms, and transient problems with vitality or hormonal function. Adverse effects of prostatectomy on sexual function were mitigated by nerve-sparing procedures. After prostatectomy, urinary incontinence was observed, but urinary irritation and obstruction improved, particularly in patients with large prostates. No treatment-related deaths occurred; serious adverse events were rare. Treatment-related symptoms were exacerbated by obesity, a large prostate size, a high prostate-specific antigen score, and older age. Black patients reported lower satisfaction with the degree of overall treatment outcomes. Changes in quality of life were significantly associated with the degree of outcome satisfaction among patients and their spouses or partners. Each prostate-cancer treatment was associated with a distinct pattern of change in quality-of-life domains related to urinary, sexual, bowel, and hormonal function. These changes influenced satisfaction with treatment outcomes among patients and their spouses or partners. Copyright 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Organ motion and its management.

            To compile and review data on the topic of organ motion and its management. Data were classified into three categories: (a) patient position-related organ motion, (b) interfraction organ motion, and (c) intrafraction organ motion. Data on interfraction motion of gynecological tumors, the prostate, bladder, and rectum are reviewed. Literature pertaining to the intrafraction movement of the liver, diaphragm, kidneys, pancreas, lung tumors, and prostate is compiled. Methods for managing interfraction and intrafraction organ motion in radiation therapy are also reviewed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Improved clinical outcomes with high-dose image guided radiotherapy compared with non-IGRT for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

              To compare toxicity profiles and biochemical tumor control outcomes between patients treated with high-dose image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for clinically localized prostate cancer. Between 2008 and 2009, 186 patients with prostate cancer were treated with IGRT to a dose of 86.4 Gy with daily correction of the target position based on kilovoltage imaging of implanted prostatic fiducial markers. This group of patients was retrospectively compared with a similar cohort of 190 patients who were treated between 2006 and 2007 with IMRT to the same prescription dose without, however, implanted fiducial markers in place (non-IGRT). The median follow-up time was 2.8 years (range, 2-6 years). A significant reduction in late urinary toxicity was observed for IGRT patients compared with the non-IGRT patients. The 3-year likelihood of grade 2 and higher urinary toxicity for the IGRT and non-IGRT cohorts were 10.4% and 20.0%, respectively (p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis identifying predictors for grade 2 or higher late urinary toxicity demonstrated that, in addition to the baseline Internatinoal Prostate Symptom Score, IGRT was associated with significantly less late urinary toxicity compared with non-IGRT. The incidence of grade 2 and higher rectal toxicity was low for both treatment groups (1.0% and 1.6%, respectively; p = 0.81). No differences in prostate-specific antigen relapse-free survival outcomes were observed for low- and intermediate-risk patients when treated with IGRT and non-IGRT. For high-risk patients, a significant improvement was observed at 3 years for patients treated with IGRT compared with non-IGRT. IGRT is associated with an improvement in biochemical tumor control among high-risk patients and a lower rate of late urinary toxicity compared with high-dose IMRT. These data suggest that, for definitive radiotherapy, the placement of fiducial markers and daily tracking of target positioning may represent the preferred mode of external-beam radiotherapy delivery for the treatment of prostate cancer. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Radiat Oncol J
                Radiat Oncol J
                ROJ
                Radiation Oncology Journal
                The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology
                2234-1900
                2234-3164
                June 2019
                28 March 2019
                : 37
                : 2
                : 127-133
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Germany
                [2 ]Institute of Radiation Medicine, Department of Radiation Sciences, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Frederik Fuchs, Department of Radiation Oncology, Technical University Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Strasse 22, Munich 81675, Germany. Tel: +49-089-4140-4502, Fax: +49-089-4140-4477, E-mail: frederik.fuchs@ 123456gmx.net
                Article
                roj-2018-00514
                10.3857/roj.2018.00514
                6610012
                31137087
                Copyright © 2019 The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Categories
                Original Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article