Intensity modulated proton therapy versus uniform scanning proton therapy: Treatment planning study of the prostate cancer in patients with a unilateral metallic hip prosthesis

Suresh Rana, Gary Larson, Carlos Vargas, Megan Dunn, Yuanshui Zheng

Abstract


The purpose of this study is to compare the dosimetric results between the uniform scanning proton therapy (USPT) and intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans for the prostate cancer in patients with a unilateral metallic hip prosthesis. Five prostate cancer cases with left (n = 3) and right (n = 2) metallic hip prostheses were included in this retrospective study. For each case, the USPT and IMPT plans were generated using two anterior-oblique beams and one lateral beam for a total dose of 79.2 Gy(RBE) to be delivered in 44 fractions. For a given case, the beam parameters, dose prescription, and delivery schema in the IMPT plan were kept identical to the ones in the USPT plan. The IMPT and USPT plans were compared for various dosimetric parameters. The mean dose to the target volume was comparable. Both the IMPT and USPT techniques achieved the target coverage goals. Dose homogeneity was found to be similar in the IMPT and USPT plans. For both the rectum and bladder, the IMPT plans produced favorable dosimetric results in the low-, medium-, and high-dose regions when compared to the USPT plans. For the high dose regions, the rectal V70 was lower in the IMPT plans by about 3.89 cc when compared to the one in the USPT plans. The rectal V80 in the IMPT plans (1.10 cc) was almost half than the one in the USPT plans (2.39 cc). In comparison to the USPT plans, the mean dose to the rectum, bladder, and femoral head were lower in the IMPT plans by about 8.91%, 4.15%, and 41.09%, respectively. Based on the preliminary results of five cases presented in this study, the IMPT plans provided slightly better dosimetric results compared to the USPT plans, especially in sparing the rectum and bladder in the low-, medium-, and high-dose regions, for the treatment of the prostate cancer in patients with a unilateral metallic hip prosthesis. Future studies need to address the impact of the setup uncertainties and intra-fraction prostate motion in the IMPT planning of the prostate cancer patients with prosthetic hip replacements.


Keywords


Proton Therapy, Prostate Cancer, IMPT, Prosthesis, Treatment Planning

Full Text:

PDF HTML

References


Tang S, Both S, Bentefour H, et al. Improvement of prostate treatment by anterior proton fields. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83:408–18.

Chera BS, Vargas C, Morris CG, et al. Dosimetric study of pelvic proton radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75:994–1002.

Soukup M, Söhn M, Yan D, et al. Study of robustness of IMPT and IMRT for prostate cancer against organ movement. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75:941–9.

Trofimov A, Nguyen PL, Coen JJ, et al. Radiotherapy treatment of early-stage prostate cancer with IMRT and protons: A treatment planning comparison. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69:444–53.

Rana S, Cheng C, Zheng Y, et al. Proton therapy vs. VMAT for prostate cancer: a treatment planning study. Int J Particle Ther. 2014;1:22–33.

Vargas C, Fryer A, Mahajan C, et al. Dose-volume comparison of proton therapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70:744–751.

Rana S, Cheng C, Zheng Y, et al. Dosimetric study of uniform scanning proton therapy planning for prostate cancer patients with a metal hip prosthesis, and comparison with volumetric-modulated arc therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014; 15:4611.

Fontenot JD, Lee AK, Newhauser WD. Risk of secondary malignant neoplasms from proton therapy and intensity-modulated x-ray therapy for early-stage prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74: 616–22.

Yoon M, Ahn SH, Kim J, et al. Radiation-induced cancers from modern radiotherapy techniques: Intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus proton therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;77:1477–85.

Widesott L, Pierelli A, Fiorino C, et al. Helical tomotherapy vs. intensity-modulated proton therapy for whole pelvis irradiation in high-risk prostate cancer patients: dosimetric, normal tissue complication probability, and generalized equivalent uniform dose analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80:1589–600.

Reft C, Alecu R, Das IJ et al. Dosimetric considerations for patients with hip prostheses undergoing pelvic irradiation. Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 63. Med Phys. 2003;30:1162–82.

Cuaron JJ, Harris AA, Chon B, et al Anterior-oriented proton beams for prostate cancer: A multi-institutional experience. Acta Oncol. 2015:1-7. [Epub ahead of print]

Kirk ML, Tang S, Zhai H, et al. Comparison of prostate proton treatment planning technique, interfraction robustness, and analysis of single-field treatment feasibility. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015;5:99-105.

Tang S, Deville C, McDonough J, et al. Effect of intra-fraction prostate motion on proton pencil beam scanning delivery: a quantitative assessment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013 ;87:375-82.

Qamhiyeh S, Geismar D, Pottgen C, et al. The effects of motion on the dose distribution of proton radiotherapy for prostate cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012;13:3639.

Hong L, Goitein M, Bucciolini M, et al. A pencil beam algorithm for proton dose calculations. Phys Med Biol. 1996; 41:1305–30.

Michalski JM, Gay H, Jackson A, et al. Radiation dose-volume effects in radiation-induced rectal injury. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:S123–S129.

Cozzarini C, Fiorino C, Ceresoli GL, et al. Significant correlation between rectal DVH and late bleeding in patients treated after radical prostatectomy with conformal or conventional radiotherapy (66.6 −70.2 Gy). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;55:688–94.

Fiorino C, Cozzarini C, Vavassori V, et al. Relationships between DVHs and late rectal bleeding after radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Analysis of a large group of patients pooled from three institutions. Radiother Oncol. 2002;64:1–12.

Viswanathan AN, Yorke ED, Marks LB, et al. Radiation dose-volume effects of the urinary bladder. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phy. 2010;76(3 Suppl):S116–22.

Paganetti H. Range uncertainties in proton therapy and the role of Monte Carlo simulations. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57:R99–R117.

Liu W, Zhang X, Li Y, Mohan R. Robust optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy. Med Phys. 2012; 39:1079-91.

Liu W, Frank SJ, Li X, et al. Effectiveness of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy planning for head and neck cancers. Med Phys. 2013;40:051711.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14319/jpt.11.3

Copyright (c) 2015 Suresh Rana

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

-------------------------------------------

© Journal of Proton Therapy (ISSN 2469-5491)

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the 'protonjournal.org' and 'protonjournal.com' domains to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', please check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.