Dosimetric Comparison of Ultra-Hypofractionated and Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy Boosts for Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer.
complexity
dose metrics
dosimetric comparison
prostate
ultra-hypofractionated radiation therapy
Journal
Life (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-1729
Titre abrégé: Life (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101580444
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Mar 2022
09 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
04
02
2022
revised:
04
03
2022
accepted:
07
03
2022
entrez:
25
3
2022
pubmed:
26
3
2022
medline:
26
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Recent comparison of an ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy (UF-RT) boost to a conventionally fractionated (CF-RT) option showed similar toxicity and disease control outcomes. An analysis of the treatment plans for these patients is needed for evaluating calculated doses for different organs, treatment beam-on time, and requirements for human and financial resources. Eighty-six plans for UF-RT and 93 plans for CF-RT schemes were evaluated. The biologically equivalent dose, EQD2, summed for the first phase and the boost, was calculated for dose-volume parameters for organs at risk (OARs), as well as for the PTV1. ArcCHECK measurements for the boost plans were used for a comparison of planned and delivered doses. Monitor units and beam-on times were recorded by the Eclipse treatment planning system. Statistical analysis was performed with a significance level of 0.05. Dosimetric parameter values for OARs were well within tolerance for both groups. EQD2 for the PTV1 was on average 84 Gy for UF-RT patients and 76 Gy for CF-RT patients. Gamma passing rate for planned/delivered doses comparison was above 98% for both groups with 3 mm/3% distance to agreement/dose difference criteria. Total monitor units per fraction were 647 ± 94 and 2034 ± 570 for CF-RT and UF-RT, respectively. The total delivery time for boost radiation for the patients in the UF-RT arm was, on average, four times less than the total time for a conventional regimen with statistically equal clinical outcomes for the two arms in this study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35330145
pii: life12030394
doi: 10.3390/life12030394
pmc: PMC8951141
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Greater Poland Cancer Centre
ID : 29/08/214/R1-4/WCO/1
Références
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2013 Feb 08;18(5):265-71
pubmed: 24416563
Phys Med. 2021 Apr;84:65-71
pubmed: 33862451
Lancet. 2019 Aug 3;394(10196):385-395
pubmed: 31227373
Z Med Phys. 2020 Nov;30(4):289-299
pubmed: 32620322
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015 Jul 15;92(4):874-83
pubmed: 26104940
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Feb 12;13(4):
pubmed: 33673077
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Jan 1;82(1):e17-24
pubmed: 21324610
Med Phys. 2013 Jul;40(7):077101
pubmed: 23822460
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020 Jan 1;106(1):108-115
pubmed: 31593756
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Dec;153:26-33
pubmed: 32987045
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2020 May-Jun;25(3):412-421
pubmed: 32372881
Phys Med. 2022 Mar;95:133-139
pubmed: 35176719
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jun 10;35(17):1884-1890
pubmed: 28296582
Radiat Oncol. 2021 Apr 13;16(1):72
pubmed: 33849589
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2019 Apr 04;4(3):492-499
pubmed: 31360805
Phys Med. 2020 Aug;76:243-276
pubmed: 32736286
BMC Cancer. 2020 Oct 9;20(1):978
pubmed: 33036579
JAMA. 2017 Jun 27;317(24):2532-2542
pubmed: 28655021
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2013 Sep 29;19(1):47-55
pubmed: 24936319
JAMA Oncol. 2021 Apr 1;7(4):563-564
pubmed: 33599702
Urol Oncol. 2017 Feb;35(2):76-85
pubmed: 27473636
Andrologia. 2019 Feb;51(1):e13157
pubmed: 30281167
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Oct 11;:JCO1801097
pubmed: 30307776
Med Dosim. 2021 Autumn;46(3):209-211
pubmed: 33423882