Jennifer Le Guevelou, Ayad Houssayni, Stéphane Key, Axel Largent, Caroline Lafond, Oscar Acosta, Antoine Simon, Renaud de Crevoisier, Anaïs Barateau
{"title":"Defining the potential for sexual structures-sparing for prostate cancer external beam radiotherapy: A dosimetric study.","authors":"Jennifer Le Guevelou, Ayad Houssayni, Stéphane Key, Axel Largent, Caroline Lafond, Oscar Acosta, Antoine Simon, Renaud de Crevoisier, Anaïs Barateau","doi":"10.1016/j.canrad.2024.05.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of the study was to evaluate the dosimetric impact of sexual-sparing radiotherapy for prostate cancer, with magnetic resonance-only treatment planning.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Fifteen consecutive patients receiving prostate cancer radiotherapy were selected. A synthetic CT was generated with a deep learning method from each T2-weighted MRI performed at the time of treatment planning. For each patient, two plans were performed: standard treatment planning and sexual-structures sparing treatment planning. The treatment plan was designed to deliver a dose of 78Gy to the prostate and 50Gy to the seminal vesicles in 2Gy daily fractions, using volumetric arc therapy. Dose-volume histograms were computed to compare treatment plans.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All plans fulfilled dosimetric objectives and were equivalent regarding planning target volume coverage. The doses delivered to both rectum, bladder, and femoral heads were similar between plans (P=0.20). Sexual-sparing plans enabled to decrease all dosimetric parameters on sexual organs-at-risk. The mean penile bulb dose in sexual-sparing plans was significantly reduced (21.1Gy±20.7 versus 13.4Gy±14.0, P<0.01), however with large variability observed between individuals. The mean dose delivered to the corpora cavernosa was also significantly reduced within sexual-sparing plans (13.1Gy±16.7 versus 8.6Gy±10.4, P<0.01). A significant reduction was also observed in the highest doses delivered to internal pudendal arteries (D10%: 48.4Gy±8.3 versus 33.1Gy±4.6, P<0.05; D5%: 52.0Gy±8.7 versus 36.8Gy±5.5, P<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Sparing of sexual structures appears feasible, without compromising neither planning target volume coverage nor doses delivered to non-sexual organs at risk. The clinical significance of this dose-reduction requires prospective evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":93921,"journal":{"name":"Cancer radiotherapie : journal de la Societe francaise de radiotherapie oncologique","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer radiotherapie : journal de la Societe francaise de radiotherapie oncologique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canrad.2024.05.008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the dosimetric impact of sexual-sparing radiotherapy for prostate cancer, with magnetic resonance-only treatment planning.
Material and methods: Fifteen consecutive patients receiving prostate cancer radiotherapy were selected. A synthetic CT was generated with a deep learning method from each T2-weighted MRI performed at the time of treatment planning. For each patient, two plans were performed: standard treatment planning and sexual-structures sparing treatment planning. The treatment plan was designed to deliver a dose of 78Gy to the prostate and 50Gy to the seminal vesicles in 2Gy daily fractions, using volumetric arc therapy. Dose-volume histograms were computed to compare treatment plans.
Results: All plans fulfilled dosimetric objectives and were equivalent regarding planning target volume coverage. The doses delivered to both rectum, bladder, and femoral heads were similar between plans (P=0.20). Sexual-sparing plans enabled to decrease all dosimetric parameters on sexual organs-at-risk. The mean penile bulb dose in sexual-sparing plans was significantly reduced (21.1Gy±20.7 versus 13.4Gy±14.0, P<0.01), however with large variability observed between individuals. The mean dose delivered to the corpora cavernosa was also significantly reduced within sexual-sparing plans (13.1Gy±16.7 versus 8.6Gy±10.4, P<0.01). A significant reduction was also observed in the highest doses delivered to internal pudendal arteries (D10%: 48.4Gy±8.3 versus 33.1Gy±4.6, P<0.05; D5%: 52.0Gy±8.7 versus 36.8Gy±5.5, P<0.05).
Conclusion: Sparing of sexual structures appears feasible, without compromising neither planning target volume coverage nor doses delivered to non-sexual organs at risk. The clinical significance of this dose-reduction requires prospective evaluation.