The effect of prostate motion during hypofractionated radiotherapy can be reduced by using flattening filter free beams

Treatment Optimization in Linac-Based SBRT for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Single-Arc versus Dual-Arc Plan Comparison

This study aimed to comprehensively present data on treatment optimization in linac-based SBRT for localized prostate cancer at a single institution. Moreover, the dosimetric quality and treatment efficiency of single-arc (SA) versus dual-arc (DA) VMAT planning and delivery approaches were compared. Re-optimization was performed on twenty low-to-intermediate-risk- (36.25 Gy in 5 fractions) and twenty high-risk (42.7 Gy in 7 fractions) prostate plans initially administered with the DA FFF-VMAT technique in 2021. An SA approach was adopted, incorporating new optimization parameters based on increased planning and clinical experience. Analysis included target coverage, organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing, treatment delivery time, and the pre-treatment verification's gamma analysis-passing ratio. The SA optimization technique has consistently produced superior plans. Rectum and bladder mean doses were significantly reduced, and comparable target coverage and homogeneity were achieved in order to maintain a urethra protection strategy. The mean SA treatment delivery time was reduced by 22%; the mean monitor units increased due to higher plan complexity; and dose measurements demonstrated optimal agreement with calculations. The substantial reduction in treatment delivery time decreased the probability of prostate motion beyond the applied margins, suggesting potential decrease in treatment-related toxicity and improved target coverage in prostate SBRT. Further investigations are warranted to assess the long-term clinical outcomes.

Intrafraction Prostate Motion Management for Ultra-Hypofractionated Radiotherapy of Prostate Cancer

Purpose: Determine the time-dependent magnitude of intrafraction prostate displacement and a cutoff for the tracking decision. Methods: Nine patients with localized prostate cancer were treated with ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy (CyberKnife) with fiducial markers. Exact tract kV/kV imaging was used with an average interval of 19−92 s. A Gaussian distribution was calculated for the x-, y-, and z-directions (σx,y,z). The variation of prostate motion (μσ) was obtained by averaging the patients’ specifics, and the safety margin was calculated to be MAB = WYm + WBSs. Results: The calculated PTV safety margins were as follows: at 40 s: 0.55 mm (L/r), 0.85 mm (a/p), and 1.05 mm (s/i); at 60 s: 0.9 mm (L/r), 1.35 mm (a/p), and 1.55 mm (s/i); at 100 s: 1.5 mm (L/r), 2.3 mm (a/p), and 2.6 mm (s/i); at 150 s: 1.9 mm (L/r), 3.1 mm (a/p), and 3.6 mm (s/i); at 200 s: 2.2 mm (L/r), 3.8 mm (a/p), and 4.2 mm (s/i); and at 300 s: 2.6 mm (L/r), 5.3 mm (a/p), and 5.6 mm (s/i). A tracking cutoff of 2.5 min seemed reasonable. In order to achieve an accuracy of < 1 mm, tracking with < 50 s intervals was necessary. Conclusions: For ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy of the prostate with treatment times > 2.5 min, intrafraction motion management is recommended.

SBRT for Localized Prostate Cancer: CyberKnife vs. VMAT-FFF, a Dosimetric Study

In recent years, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has gained popularity among clinical methods for the treatment of medium and low risk prostate cancer (PCa), mainly as an alternative to surgery. The hypo-fractionated regimen allows the administration of high doses of radiation in a small number of fractions; such a fractionation is possible by exploiting the different intrinsic prostate radiosensitivity compared with the surrounding healthy tissues. In addition, SBRT treatment guaranteed a better quality of life compared with surgery, avoiding risks, aftermaths, and possible complications. At present, most stereotactic prostate treatments are performed with the CyberKnife (CK) system, which is an accelerator exclusively dedicated for stereotaxis and it is not widely spread in every radiotherapy centre like a classic linear accelerator (LINAC). To be fair, a stereotactic treatment is achievable also by using a LINAC through Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), but some precautions must be taken. The aim of this work is to carry out a dosimetric comparison between these two methodologies. In order to pursue such a goal, two groups of patients were selected at Instituto Nazionale Tumori—IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale: the first group consisting of ten patients previously treated with a SBRT performed with CK; the second one was composed of ten patients who received a hypo-fractionated VMAT treatment and replanned in VMAT-SBRT flattening filter free mode (FFF). The two SBRT techniques were rescaled at the same target coverage and compared by normal tissue sparing, dose distribution parameters and delivery time. All organs at risk (OAR) constraints were achieved by both platforms. CK exhibits higher performances in terms of dose delivery; nevertheless, the general satisfying dosimetric results and the significantly shorter delivery time make VMAT-FFF an attractive and reasonable alternative SBRT technique for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

Faster and more accurate patient positioning with surface guided radiotherapy for ultra-hypofractionated prostate cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate if surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) can decrease patient positioning time for localized prostate cancer patients compared to the conventional 3-point localization setup method. The patient setup accuracy was also compared between the two setup methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 40 localized prostate cancer patients were enrolled in this study, where 20 patients were positioned with surface imaging (SI) and 20 patients were positioned with 3-point localization. The setup time was obtained from the system log files of the linear accelerator and compared between the two methods. The patient setup was verified with daily orthogonal kV images which were matched based on the implanted gold fiducial markers. Resulting setup deviations between planned and online positions were compared between SI and 3-point localization.

RESULTS

Median setup time was 2:50 min and 3:28 min for SI and 3-point localization, respectively (p < 0.001). The median vector offset was 4.7 mm (range: 0-10.4 mm) for SI and 5.2 mm for 3-point localization (range: 0.41-17.3 mm) (p = 0.01). Median setup deviation in the individual translations for SI and 3-point localization respectively was: 1.1 mm and 1.9 mm in lateral direction (p = 0.02), 1.8 and 1.6 mm in the longitudinal direction (p = 0.41) and 2.2 mm and 2.6 mm in the vertical direction (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Using SGRT for positioning of prostate cancer patients provided a faster and more accurate patient positioning compared to the conventional 3-point localization setup.

Dosimetric Evaluation of PSMA PET-Delineated Dominant Intraprostatic Lesion Simultaneous Infield Boosts

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer is multifocal. However, there often exists a single dominant focus in the gland responsible for driving the biology of the disease. Dose escalation to the dominant lesion is a proposed strategy to increase tumor control. We applied radiobiological modeling to evaluate the dosimetric feasibility and benefit of dominant intraprostatic lesion simultaneous in-field boosts (DIL-SIB) to the gross tumor volume (GTV), defined using a novel molecular positron emission tomography (PET) probe (18F-DCFPyL) directed against prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with clinically localized, biopsy-proven prostate cancer underwent preoperative [18F]-DCFPyL PET/computed tomography (CT). DIL-SIB plans were generated by importing the PET/CT into the RayStation treatment planning system. GTV-PET for the DIL-SIB was defined by the highest %SUVmax (percentage of maximum standardized uptake value) that generated a biologically plausible volume. Volumetric arc-based plans incorporating prostate plus DIL-SIB treatment were generated. Tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) with fractionation schemes and boost doses specified in the FLAME (Investigate the Benefit of a Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in Prostate Cancer; NCT01168479), PROFIT (Prostate Fractionated Irradiation Trial; NCT00304759), PACE (Prostate Advances in Comparative Evidence; NCT01584258), and hypoFLAME (Hypofractionated Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in prostatE Cancer 2.0; NCT02853110) protocols were compared.

RESULTS

Comparative DIL-SIB plans for 6 men were generated from preoperative [18F]-DCFPyL PET/CT. Median boost GTV volume was 1.015 cm3 (0.42-1.83 cm3). Median minimum (D99%) DIL-SIB dose for F35BS, F20BS, F5BS, and F5BSH were 97.3 Gy, 80.8 Gy, 46.5 Gy, and 51.5Gy. TCP within the GTV ranged from 84% to 88% for the standard plan and 95% to 96% for the DIL-SIB plans. Within the rest of the prostate, TCP ranged from 89% to 91% for the standard plans and 90% to 92% for the DIL-SIB plans. NTCP for the rectum NTCP was similar for the DIL-SIB plans (0.3%-2.7%) compared with standard plans (0.7%-2.6%). Overall, DIL-SIB plans yielded higher uncomplicated TCP (NTCP, 90%-94%) versus standard plans (NTCP, 83%-85%).

CONCLUSIONS

PSMA PET provides a novel approach to define GTV for SIB-DIL dose escalation. Work is ongoing to validate PSMA PET-delineated GTV through correlation to coregistered postprostatectomy digitized histopathology.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy with optional focal lesion ablative microboost in prostate cancer: Topical review and multicenter consensus

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa) is gaining interest by the recent publication of the first phase III trials on prostate SBRT and the promising results of many other phase II trials. Before long term results became available, the major concern for implementing SBRT in PCa in daily clinical practice was the potential risk of late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. A number of recently published trials, including late outcome and toxicity data, contributed to the growing evidence for implementation of SBRT for PCa in daily clinical practice. However, there exists substantial variability in delivering SBRT for PCa. The aim of this topical review is to present a number of prospective trials and retrospective analyses of SBRT in the treatment of PCa. We focus on the treatment strategies and techniques used in these trials. In addition, recent literature on a simultaneous integrated boost to the tumor lesion, which could create an additional value in the SBRT treatment of PCa, was described. Furthermore, we discuss the multicenter consensus of the FLAME consortium on SBRT for PCa with a focal boost to the macroscopic intraprostatic tumor nodule(s).