Inhwan Yeo, Alexander Goughenour, George Cernica, Wei Nie, Mindy Joo, Peng Wang, Jiajin Fan, Ashkan Parniani, Samir Kanani
{"title":"Proton Versus CyberKnife Therapy Planning for Hypofractionated Treatment of Prostate With Focal Boost.","authors":"Inhwan Yeo, Alexander Goughenour, George Cernica, Wei Nie, Mindy Joo, Peng Wang, Jiajin Fan, Ashkan Parniani, Samir Kanani","doi":"10.1016/j.ijpt.2024.100635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare intensity-modulated proton therapy with CyberKnife (CK) therapy for hypo-fractionated treatments of prostate with focal boost, as a first planning study for prostate with dose escalation to a dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Ten patients who possess one DIL in their prostate and their CK plans that were used to treat the planning target volume of prostate were chosen. Six of the plans were further escalated to DIL. Intensity-modulated proton therapy plans were created for the patients with robust optimization, accounting for setup and range uncertainties for the clinical target volume (CTV) of prostate. The CK plans were then compared with the proton plans.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the worst scenario of the robust evaluation, the proton plans reasonably met all objectives and constraints used in CK planning for both CTV coverage and organs-at-risk (OAR) sparing. Under the nominal scenario of the robust optimization, the proton plans produced dosimetric values comparable to those by the CK plans for both CTV and DIL coverage. The average dose to CTV, outside DIL and urethra, was found lower in the proton plans than in the CK plans due to the uncertainties. A similar trend was observed for the dose conformity to CTV. These two findings, however, were not planning objectives. Regarding organs-at-risk sparing, the proton plans in the nominal scenario were comparable to the CK plans for doses >18.125 Gy; for doses below it, the proton performed better. This study offers a basis for a clinical trial of treatment of prostate cancer by proton that may be transferred from the CK system in our center.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The dosimetric objectives and constraints used in the CK plans were achieved with the proton plans.</p>","PeriodicalId":36923,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Particle Therapy","volume":"14 ","pages":"100635"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11647119/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Particle Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpt.2024.100635","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To compare intensity-modulated proton therapy with CyberKnife (CK) therapy for hypo-fractionated treatments of prostate with focal boost, as a first planning study for prostate with dose escalation to a dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL).
Materials and methods: Ten patients who possess one DIL in their prostate and their CK plans that were used to treat the planning target volume of prostate were chosen. Six of the plans were further escalated to DIL. Intensity-modulated proton therapy plans were created for the patients with robust optimization, accounting for setup and range uncertainties for the clinical target volume (CTV) of prostate. The CK plans were then compared with the proton plans.
Results: In the worst scenario of the robust evaluation, the proton plans reasonably met all objectives and constraints used in CK planning for both CTV coverage and organs-at-risk (OAR) sparing. Under the nominal scenario of the robust optimization, the proton plans produced dosimetric values comparable to those by the CK plans for both CTV and DIL coverage. The average dose to CTV, outside DIL and urethra, was found lower in the proton plans than in the CK plans due to the uncertainties. A similar trend was observed for the dose conformity to CTV. These two findings, however, were not planning objectives. Regarding organs-at-risk sparing, the proton plans in the nominal scenario were comparable to the CK plans for doses >18.125 Gy; for doses below it, the proton performed better. This study offers a basis for a clinical trial of treatment of prostate cancer by proton that may be transferred from the CK system in our center.
Conclusion: The dosimetric objectives and constraints used in the CK plans were achieved with the proton plans.
目的:比较强度调制质子疗法和CyberKnife(CK)疗法对前列腺进行低分量治疗和病灶增强治疗的效果,作为对前列腺进行剂量升级至前列腺内主要病灶(DIL)的首次规划研究:选取前列腺内有一个 DIL 的 10 名患者及其用于治疗前列腺计划目标体积的 CK 计划。其中六项计划进一步升级为 DIL。考虑到前列腺临床靶体积(CTV)的设置和范围的不确定性,通过稳健优化为患者创建了强度调节质子治疗计划。然后将 CK 计划与质子计划进行比较:结果:在稳健评估的最坏情况下,质子计划合理地满足了 CK 计划中用于 CTV 覆盖和风险器官(OAR)疏通的所有目标和约束条件。在稳健优化的名义情况下,质子计划在 CTV 和 DIL 覆盖方面产生的剂量值与 CK 计划相当。由于存在不确定性,质子计划中 DIL 和尿道以外的 CTV 平均剂量低于 CK 计划。在 CTV 的剂量一致性方面也观察到类似的趋势。不过,这两项发现并非计划目标。关于风险器官的疏通,在剂量大于 18.125 Gy 的情况下,名义方案中的质子计划与 CK 计划相当;而在低于 18.125 Gy 的情况下,质子的表现更好。这项研究为质子治疗前列腺癌的临床试验提供了基础,我们中心的 CK 系统可能会转用质子治疗前列腺癌:质子计划实现了 CK 计划中使用的剂量学目标和限制。