890 Acute small bowel and colon toxicity after pelvic IMRT for prostate cancer

Acute toxicity of whole-pelvis IMRT in 87 patients with localized prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To assess the acute toxicity profile of whole pelvis IMRT (WP-IMRT) for localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS

Eighty seven patients treated with definitive WP-IMRT at UTMB from May 2002 to November 2006 were retrospectively reviewed. Treatment consisted of two sequential phases, WP-IMRT to 54 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction to the pelvic nodes and seminal vesicles and 60 Gy at 2 Gy to the prostate, and a separate external beam boost, 3DCRT or IMRT, to bring the dose to the prostate to 76 Gy. Acute toxicity was prospectively scored weekly during treatment and at 3 month follow-up according to CTC v2.0 for 10 genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) domains. The proportion of patients experiencing a given level of peak acute toxicity at a given point is reported.

RESULTS

Treatment was feasible with delivered doses to PTVs not significantly lower than planned ones and with only two patients experiencing treatment gaps longer than 5 days. About 2/3 and 1/10 of the patients experienced peak grade 2 and grade 3 reactions at least once during RT, respectively. Frequency/urgency (Grade 2+: 37.9%) and diarrhea (36.7%) were the most prevalent symptoms followed by proctitis (21.8%) and dysuria (16.1%). GI reactions were generally shorter lasting compared to GU ones which accumulated progressively during treatment. At 3 months, almost half of the patients were asymptomatic and most of observed reactions (89.2%) were mild, with GI ones more likely to be fully resolved (92.5%) than GU ones (68.7%, chi(2), p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our approach is dosimetrically and clinically feasible with intense, but transient, acute toxicity.

Is IMRT needed to spare the rectum when pelvic lymph nodes are part of the initial treatment volume for prostate cancer?

PURPOSE

To assess whether a 4-field box technique (4FBT), along with its technical refinements, is an adequate approach in terms of rectal sparing and target coverage for patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing whole-pelvic radiotherapy followed by a prostate boost and whether or not intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is needed.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

For 8 patients, 31 plans were generated, each of them differing in one or more features, including prescription (dose/volume) and/or technical factors. For the latter, several "solutions" to try to reduce the amount of irradiated rectal volume were addressed, including modifications of the 4FBT and the use of sequential IMRT. We constructed a database with 248 plans that were tested for their ability to meet a series of rectal dose-volume constraints at V50, V60, V65, V70, V75, and V75.6. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with the end point. Successful solutions were also compared in terms of coverage of both pelvic node and prostate planning target volume (PTV) by isodose 95%.

RESULTS

At multivariate logistic regression, both rectal blocking and IMRT were independent predictors of the probability of meeting rectal dose-volume constraints during the pelvic and boost phases of treatment with close relative risks. However, on average, partial rectal blocking on lateral fields of 4FBT during whole-pelvic radiotherapy resulted in about 3% of pelvic node PTV being outside isodose 95%; only 2 of 8 patients had the pelvic nodal PTV covered similarly to what was achieved by whole-pelvis IMRT. Conversely, blocking the rectum during the last 3 fractions of the conformal boost showed a dosimetric coverage of prostate PTV similar to that achieved by IMRT boost. Interestingly, patient anatomic configuration was the strongest predictor of rectal sparing. Finally, the size of prostate margins to generate PTV was also independently associated with the probability of meeting rectal dose-volume constraints.

CONCLUSION

In the dose range of 70-76 Gy to the prostate, IMRT and standard techniques are equally effective in meeting rectal dose-volume constraints. However, whole-pelvis IMRT might be preferable to standard techniques for its slightly superior PTV coverage.