Retrospective dosimetric evaluation of VMAT plans for prostate cancer treatment

An institutional review: dosimetry comparison between simultaneous integrated boost IMRT and VMAT for prostate cancer

Purpose:

A comparative study was performed about the plan parameters and quality indices between volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer patients. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the two methods of external beam radiotherapy IMRT and VMAT in terms of plan quality and efficacy.

Material and method:

Fifteen high-risk prostate patients were planned for radiotherapy using 6 MV photon. Three dose levels were contoured having Planning Tumour Volume 1 (PTV1 = 48 Gy), Planning Tumour Volume 2 (PTV2 = 57.6 Gy) and Planning Tumour Volume 3 (PTV3 = 60 Gy). Setup margins were given using the CHIP trial method. The prescribed PTV3 dose was 60 Gy in 20 fractions which is biologically equivalent to 74 Gy in 37 fractions using α/β = 3. In case of IMRT, seven fixed beam angles 30, 60, 105, 180, 255, 300 and 330 were used and the dose was optimised using the sliding window method. In case of rapid arc technique, one or two full arcs were used for dose optimisation while keeping all the dose constraints and other planning parameters same used in IMRT. The plan evaluation parameters and Organ at risks (OARs) doses were calculated using a dose volume histogram (DVH).

Results:

The average D2, D5, D95 and PTVmean for PTV3 were 61.22, 61.13, 58.12, 60.00 Gy and 62.41 62.24 59.53 61.12 Gy for IMRT and VMAT, respectively. The averages V60 for bladder and V30 for rectum were 22.81, 25 and 67, 65% for IMRT and VMAT, respectively. The average homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) and gradient index (GI) were 1.04, 1.4833, 14.79 and 1.04, 1.704, 7.89 for IMRT and VMAT, respectively.

Conclusion:

VMAT takes less dose-delivery time and lesser number of monitoring units than IMRT, thus it compensates the intrafractional movements during dose delivery. The Dose GI in VMAT was much better than IMRT. This indicates sharper dose fall off near the normal tissue. No other major differences were observed in terms of plan evaluation parameters between IMRT and VMAT techniques. So, we conclude that VMAT technique is more efficient than IMRT in terms of plan quality and dose delivery.

A review of radiation induced abscopal effect: combining radiotherapy and immunotherapy to treat the untreated distant metastatic tumours

Background:

Radiotherapy is an effective and significant mode of definitive cancer treatment with well-established local tumour control success, especially in the treatment of localised tumours. Although, for metastatic disease, the role of radiotherapy has generally been limited to palliation of symptoms. In the treatment of metastatic diseases settings, the radiation therapy technique has always been confronted with the challenge of the simultaneous treatment of all of the various distant metastatic tumour sites, however, some recent evidence suggests that radiotherapy can potentially induce anticancer immune responses whose effectors potentially migrate to distant metastatic tumours to provoke their regression in cancer patients. Thus, unirradiated distant metastatic tumour sites can exhibit a delayed therapeutic response termed the abscopal effect.

Materials and methods:

This paper reports on a review of the abscopal effect, including its biological mechanism, the effect of radiation dose and fractionation regime and the timing of immunotherapy administration on radiotherapy-induced abscopal effect, the enhancement of radiotherapy-induced abscopal effects with immunotherapy, the effect of the location of the irradiated tumour and the radiotherapy of multiple tumour sites on the likelihood and effectiveness of inducing abscopal responses in the preclinical and clinical settings and also reports on some evidence of clinical observations in patients.

Conclusions:

Although abscopal effects of radiotherapy are still relatively rare in patients, it has gained a lot of interest due to recent development and use of immunotherapy strategies incorporating combinations of targeted immunomodulators and immune checkpoint blockade with radiation therapy. The enhancement of cancer immunotherapy could potentially enable the translation of the concept of abscopal effect into the clinics as a new strategy to induce therapeutically effective anti-tumour immune responses in cancer patients. The combination of radiotherapy and immunotherapy has the potential to expand the role of radiotherapy from a purely local tumour control treatment to play a significant role in advanced and metastatic tumour control and this could likely lead to a paradigm shift in the treatment of patients with metastatic cancer.

A review of the effects of tobacco smoking on the treatment of prostate cancer

Background:

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy and the third leading cause of death among Canadian men. The standard treatment modalities for prostate cancer include prostatectomy, radiation therapy, hormonal therapy and chemotherapy or any combination depending on the stage of the tumour. However, several studies have reported that tobacco smoking at the time of diagnosis and during treatment can potentially impact treatment efficacy, outcome and patients quality of life after treatment.

Materials and methods:

This narrative literature review elucidates the impacts of tobacco smoking on prostate cancer progression, treatment efficacy, including its effects on prostatectomy, radiation therapy and chemotherapy, risk of cancer recurrence and mortality and quality of life after treatment. Furthermore, we discuss the importance of integrating a smoking cessation programme into the treatment regimen for prostate cancer patients in order to yield more favourable treatment outcomes, reduce risk of recurrence and mortality and increase the quality of life after treatment for prostate cancer patients.

Conclusions:

Smoking cessation is one of the most important interventions to prevent cancer and it is also essential after the diagnosis of prostate cancer to improve clinical outcomes. All prostate cancer patients should be advised to quit tobacco use since it can potentially improve treatment response rates and survival, as well as reduce the risk of developing treatment complications and potentially improve the quality of life after treatment. There are several benefits to smoking cessation and it should become an important component of the cancer care continuum in all oncology programmes, starting from prevention of cancer through diagnosis, treatment, survivorship and palliative care. Evidence-based smoking cessation intervention should be sustainably integrated into any comprehensive cancer programme, and the information should be targeted to the specific benefits of cessation in cancer patients.

Dosimetric evaluation of whole-pelvis radiation therapy of prostate cancers: clinical experience

Background:

The standard treatment modalities for prostate cancer include surgery, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy and radiation therapy or any combination depending on the stage of the tumour. Radiation therapy is a common and effective treatment modality for low-intermediate-risk patients with localised prostate cancer, to treat the intact prostate and seminal vesicles or prostate bed post prostatectomy. However, for high-risk patients with lymph node involvement, treatment with radiation will usually include treatment of the whole pelvis to cover the prostate and seminal vesicles or prostate bed and the pelvic lymph nodes followed by a boost delivery dose to the prostate and seminal vesicles or prostate bed.

Materials and Methods:

We retrospectively analysed the treatment plans for 179 prostate cancer patients treated at the cancer centre with the volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique via RapidArc using 6 MV photon beam. Patients were either treated with a total prescription dose of 78 Gy in 39 fractions for patients with intact prostate or 66 Gy in 33 fractions for post prostatectomy patients.

Results:

There were 114 (64%) patients treated with 78 Gy/39 and 65 (36%) treated with 66 Gy/34. The mean homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI) and uniformity index (UI) for the PTV-primary of patients treated with 78 Gy are 0.06 ± 0.01, 1.04 ± 0.01 and 0.99 ± 0.01, respectively, and the corresponding mean values for patients treated with 66 Gy are 0.06 ± 0.02, 1.05 ± 0.01 and 0.99 ± 0.01, respectively. The mean PTV-primary V95%, V100% and V105% are 99.5 ± 0.5%, 78.8 ± 12.2% and 0.1 ± 0.5%, respectively, for patients treated with 78 Gy and 99.3 ± 0.9%, 78.1 ± 10.6% and 0.1 ± 0.4%, respectively, for patients treated with 66 Gy. The rectal V50Gy, V65Gy, V66.6Gy, V70Gy, V75Gy and V80Gy are 26.8 ± 9.1%, 14.2 ± 5.3%, 13.1 ± 5.0%, 10.8 ± 4.3%, 6.9 ± 3.1% and 0.1 ± 0.1%, respectively, for patients treated with 78 Gy and 33.7 ± 8.4%, 14.1 ± 4.5%, 6.7 ± 4.5%, 0.0 ± 0.2%, 0.0% and 0.0%, respectively, for patients treated with 66 Gy.

Conclusion:

The use of VMAT technique for radiation therapy of high-risk prostate cancer patients is an efficient and reliable method for achieving superior dose conformity, uniformity and homogeneity to the PTV and minimal doses to the organs at risk. Results from this study provide the basis for the development and implementation of consistent treatment criteria in radiotherapy programs, have the potential to establish an evaluation process to define a consistent, standardised and transparent treatment path for all patients that reduces significant variations in the acceptability of treatment plans and potentially improve patient standard of care.