Joel Beaudry, Gil'ad N. Cohen, Marisa Kollmeier, Daniel Gorovets, Michael Zelefsky, Antonio L. Damato
{"title":"PO79","authors":"Joel Beaudry, Gil'ad N. Cohen, Marisa Kollmeier, Daniel Gorovets, Michael Zelefsky, Antonio L. Damato","doi":"10.1016/j.brachy.2023.06.180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose Promising results have been demonstrated using single fraction external beam for treatment of prostate cancer. Due to inherent differences of delivery between external beam and brachytherapy, the feasibility of replicating the external beam dosimetry in brachytherapy is investigated. Materials and Methods A retrospective study was performed using datasets of 120 HDR prostate patients from 6 different physicians in a single institution. The original plans were prescribed to 15Gy (with EBRT to follow). No changes were made to catheter placement, dwell positions, or contours. An in-house software, a linear optimizer with bounded and unbounded constraints, was used to elevate the dose to the entire gland to 24 Gy with no manual manipulation of the optimized plan/dwell times. The resulting plans were compared with published results of single fraction external beam plans to a dose of 24Gy, using the same dosimetric constraints [1]. Prostate D50%, Dmean, D95%, D2%, V24Gy, and V21.6Gy were reported, as well as OAR constraints D1cc for the rectum and urethra. Results Brachytherapy vs external beam prostate median metrics were 31.4 vs 24.5 Gy for Dmean; 22.1 vs 22.1 Gy for D95%; 79.8 vs 84.8% for V24Gy; 96.2 vs 96.2% for V21.6Gy. D1cc median metrics were 10.6 vs 18.5Gy for urethra and 18.2 vs 18.8Gy for rectum. Conclusion Dose escalation to the prostate was feasible and achieved similar results to external beam single fraction radiotherapy in terms of target coverage and OAR constraints. Due to the inherent differences of radiation delivery, the dose distributions differ primarily in hotspots and non-homogeneity that could lead to clinical differences. Delivery uncertainty is believed to be lower in brachytherapy, resulting in shrinking of margins and more accurate placement and delivery of hotspots, if desired. The retrospective study was based upon fixed prior implant geometries, therefore further work to investigate the placement of needles to further optimize dose conformality is ongoing. [1] Greco C et al. Safety and Efficacy of Virtual Prostatectomy With Single-Dose Radiotherapy in Patients With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From the PROSINT Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021 May 1;7(5):700-708. Promising results have been demonstrated using single fraction external beam for treatment of prostate cancer. Due to inherent differences of delivery between external beam and brachytherapy, the feasibility of replicating the external beam dosimetry in brachytherapy is investigated. A retrospective study was performed using datasets of 120 HDR prostate patients from 6 different physicians in a single institution. The original plans were prescribed to 15Gy (with EBRT to follow). No changes were made to catheter placement, dwell positions, or contours. An in-house software, a linear optimizer with bounded and unbounded constraints, was used to elevate the dose to the entire gland to 24 Gy with no manual manipulation of the optimized plan/dwell times. The resulting plans were compared with published results of single fraction external beam plans to a dose of 24Gy, using the same dosimetric constraints [1]. Prostate D50%, Dmean, D95%, D2%, V24Gy, and V21.6Gy were reported, as well as OAR constraints D1cc for the rectum and urethra. Brachytherapy vs external beam prostate median metrics were 31.4 vs 24.5 Gy for Dmean; 22.1 vs 22.1 Gy for D95%; 79.8 vs 84.8% for V24Gy; 96.2 vs 96.2% for V21.6Gy. D1cc median metrics were 10.6 vs 18.5Gy for urethra and 18.2 vs 18.8Gy for rectum. Dose escalation to the prostate was feasible and achieved similar results to external beam single fraction radiotherapy in terms of target coverage and OAR constraints. Due to the inherent differences of radiation delivery, the dose distributions differ primarily in hotspots and non-homogeneity that could lead to clinical differences. Delivery uncertainty is believed to be lower in brachytherapy, resulting in shrinking of margins and more accurate placement and delivery of hotspots, if desired. The retrospective study was based upon fixed prior implant geometries, therefore further work to investigate the placement of needles to further optimize dose conformality is ongoing. [1] Greco C et al. Safety and Efficacy of Virtual Prostatectomy With Single-Dose Radiotherapy in Patients With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From the PROSINT Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021 May 1;7(5):700-708.","PeriodicalId":93914,"journal":{"name":"Brachytherapy","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PO79\",\"authors\":\"Joel Beaudry, Gil'ad N. Cohen, Marisa Kollmeier, Daniel Gorovets, Michael Zelefsky, Antonio L. Damato\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.brachy.2023.06.180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose Promising results have been demonstrated using single fraction external beam for treatment of prostate cancer. Due to inherent differences of delivery between external beam and brachytherapy, the feasibility of replicating the external beam dosimetry in brachytherapy is investigated. Materials and Methods A retrospective study was performed using datasets of 120 HDR prostate patients from 6 different physicians in a single institution. The original plans were prescribed to 15Gy (with EBRT to follow). No changes were made to catheter placement, dwell positions, or contours. An in-house software, a linear optimizer with bounded and unbounded constraints, was used to elevate the dose to the entire gland to 24 Gy with no manual manipulation of the optimized plan/dwell times. The resulting plans were compared with published results of single fraction external beam plans to a dose of 24Gy, using the same dosimetric constraints [1]. Prostate D50%, Dmean, D95%, D2%, V24Gy, and V21.6Gy were reported, as well as OAR constraints D1cc for the rectum and urethra. Results Brachytherapy vs external beam prostate median metrics were 31.4 vs 24.5 Gy for Dmean; 22.1 vs 22.1 Gy for D95%; 79.8 vs 84.8% for V24Gy; 96.2 vs 96.2% for V21.6Gy. D1cc median metrics were 10.6 vs 18.5Gy for urethra and 18.2 vs 18.8Gy for rectum. Conclusion Dose escalation to the prostate was feasible and achieved similar results to external beam single fraction radiotherapy in terms of target coverage and OAR constraints. Due to the inherent differences of radiation delivery, the dose distributions differ primarily in hotspots and non-homogeneity that could lead to clinical differences. Delivery uncertainty is believed to be lower in brachytherapy, resulting in shrinking of margins and more accurate placement and delivery of hotspots, if desired. The retrospective study was based upon fixed prior implant geometries, therefore further work to investigate the placement of needles to further optimize dose conformality is ongoing. [1] Greco C et al. Safety and Efficacy of Virtual Prostatectomy With Single-Dose Radiotherapy in Patients With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From the PROSINT Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021 May 1;7(5):700-708. Promising results have been demonstrated using single fraction external beam for treatment of prostate cancer. Due to inherent differences of delivery between external beam and brachytherapy, the feasibility of replicating the external beam dosimetry in brachytherapy is investigated. A retrospective study was performed using datasets of 120 HDR prostate patients from 6 different physicians in a single institution. The original plans were prescribed to 15Gy (with EBRT to follow). No changes were made to catheter placement, dwell positions, or contours. An in-house software, a linear optimizer with bounded and unbounded constraints, was used to elevate the dose to the entire gland to 24 Gy with no manual manipulation of the optimized plan/dwell times. The resulting plans were compared with published results of single fraction external beam plans to a dose of 24Gy, using the same dosimetric constraints [1]. Prostate D50%, Dmean, D95%, D2%, V24Gy, and V21.6Gy were reported, as well as OAR constraints D1cc for the rectum and urethra. Brachytherapy vs external beam prostate median metrics were 31.4 vs 24.5 Gy for Dmean; 22.1 vs 22.1 Gy for D95%; 79.8 vs 84.8% for V24Gy; 96.2 vs 96.2% for V21.6Gy. D1cc median metrics were 10.6 vs 18.5Gy for urethra and 18.2 vs 18.8Gy for rectum. Dose escalation to the prostate was feasible and achieved similar results to external beam single fraction radiotherapy in terms of target coverage and OAR constraints. Due to the inherent differences of radiation delivery, the dose distributions differ primarily in hotspots and non-homogeneity that could lead to clinical differences. Delivery uncertainty is believed to be lower in brachytherapy, resulting in shrinking of margins and more accurate placement and delivery of hotspots, if desired. The retrospective study was based upon fixed prior implant geometries, therefore further work to investigate the placement of needles to further optimize dose conformality is ongoing. [1] Greco C et al. Safety and Efficacy of Virtual Prostatectomy With Single-Dose Radiotherapy in Patients With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From the PROSINT Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021 May 1;7(5):700-708.\",\"PeriodicalId\":93914,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brachytherapy\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brachytherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2023.06.180\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brachytherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brachy.2023.06.180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的应用单组分外束治疗前列腺癌,取得了良好的效果。由于外照射与近距离放射治疗的传递方式存在固有的差异,本文研究了在近距离放射治疗中复制外照射剂量测定的可行性。材料和方法回顾性研究使用来自同一机构6位不同医生的120例HDR前列腺患者的数据集。最初的计划是15Gy (EBRT紧随其后)。导管放置、驻留位置或轮廓没有改变。使用内部软件,具有有界和无界约束的线性优化器,将整个腺体的剂量提高到24 Gy,无需手动操作优化计划/停留时间。使用相同的剂量学约束,将得到的方案与已发表的单组分外束方案的结果进行比较,剂量为24Gy[1]。前列腺D50%, Dmean, D95%, D2%, V24Gy, V21.6Gy,以及直肠和尿道的OAR约束D1cc。结果:近距离放疗与外置放疗前列腺均数中位数分别为31.4 Gy和24.5 Gy;D95%为22.1 Gy vs 22.1 Gy;V24Gy为79.8 vs 84.8%;V21.6Gy为96.2 vs 96.2%。D1cc中位指标为尿道10.6 gy vs 18.5Gy,直肠18.2 gy vs 18.8Gy。结论前列腺剂量递增是可行的,在靶区覆盖和OAR限制方面与外束单段放疗效果相似。由于辐射传递的内在差异,剂量分布主要在热点和非均匀性上存在差异,从而导致临床差异。据信,在近距离治疗中,递送的不确定性较低,导致边缘缩小,如果需要的话,更准确地放置和递送热点。回顾性研究基于固定的先前植入物几何形状,因此进一步研究针头放置以进一步优化剂量一致性的工作正在进行中。[1]李志强,李志强。虚拟前列腺切除术联合单剂量放疗治疗中危前列腺癌患者的安全性和有效性:PROSINT 2期随机临床试验的结果中国生物医学工程学报,2013;7(5):700-708。单组分外束治疗前列腺癌的效果令人鼓舞。由于外照射与近距离放射治疗的传递方式存在固有的差异,本文研究了在近距离放射治疗中复制外照射剂量测定的可行性。回顾性研究使用来自同一机构6位不同医生的120名HDR前列腺患者的数据集进行。最初的计划是15Gy (EBRT紧随其后)。导管放置、驻留位置或轮廓没有改变。使用内部软件,具有有界和无界约束的线性优化器,将整个腺体的剂量提高到24 Gy,无需手动操作优化计划/停留时间。使用相同的剂量学约束,将得到的方案与已发表的单组分外束方案的结果进行比较,剂量为24Gy[1]。前列腺D50%, Dmean, D95%, D2%, V24Gy, V21.6Gy,以及直肠和尿道的OAR约束D1cc。近距离放疗与外束摄护腺的中位指标分别为31.4 Gy和24.5 Gy;D95%为22.1 Gy vs 22.1 Gy;V24Gy为79.8 vs 84.8%;V21.6Gy为96.2 vs 96.2%。D1cc中位指标为尿道10.6 gy vs 18.5Gy,直肠18.2 gy vs 18.8Gy。剂量递增到前列腺是可行的,并且在靶覆盖和OAR限制方面取得了与外束单段放疗相似的结果。由于辐射传递的内在差异,剂量分布主要在热点和非均匀性上存在差异,从而导致临床差异。据信,在近距离治疗中,递送的不确定性较低,导致边缘缩小,如果需要的话,更准确地放置和递送热点。回顾性研究基于固定的先前植入物几何形状,因此进一步研究针头放置以进一步优化剂量一致性的工作正在进行中。[1]李志强,李志强。虚拟前列腺切除术联合单剂量放疗治疗中危前列腺癌患者的安全性和有效性:PROSINT 2期随机临床试验的结果中国生物医学工程学报,2013;7(5):700-708。
Purpose Promising results have been demonstrated using single fraction external beam for treatment of prostate cancer. Due to inherent differences of delivery between external beam and brachytherapy, the feasibility of replicating the external beam dosimetry in brachytherapy is investigated. Materials and Methods A retrospective study was performed using datasets of 120 HDR prostate patients from 6 different physicians in a single institution. The original plans were prescribed to 15Gy (with EBRT to follow). No changes were made to catheter placement, dwell positions, or contours. An in-house software, a linear optimizer with bounded and unbounded constraints, was used to elevate the dose to the entire gland to 24 Gy with no manual manipulation of the optimized plan/dwell times. The resulting plans were compared with published results of single fraction external beam plans to a dose of 24Gy, using the same dosimetric constraints [1]. Prostate D50%, Dmean, D95%, D2%, V24Gy, and V21.6Gy were reported, as well as OAR constraints D1cc for the rectum and urethra. Results Brachytherapy vs external beam prostate median metrics were 31.4 vs 24.5 Gy for Dmean; 22.1 vs 22.1 Gy for D95%; 79.8 vs 84.8% for V24Gy; 96.2 vs 96.2% for V21.6Gy. D1cc median metrics were 10.6 vs 18.5Gy for urethra and 18.2 vs 18.8Gy for rectum. Conclusion Dose escalation to the prostate was feasible and achieved similar results to external beam single fraction radiotherapy in terms of target coverage and OAR constraints. Due to the inherent differences of radiation delivery, the dose distributions differ primarily in hotspots and non-homogeneity that could lead to clinical differences. Delivery uncertainty is believed to be lower in brachytherapy, resulting in shrinking of margins and more accurate placement and delivery of hotspots, if desired. The retrospective study was based upon fixed prior implant geometries, therefore further work to investigate the placement of needles to further optimize dose conformality is ongoing. [1] Greco C et al. Safety and Efficacy of Virtual Prostatectomy With Single-Dose Radiotherapy in Patients With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From the PROSINT Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021 May 1;7(5):700-708. Promising results have been demonstrated using single fraction external beam for treatment of prostate cancer. Due to inherent differences of delivery between external beam and brachytherapy, the feasibility of replicating the external beam dosimetry in brachytherapy is investigated. A retrospective study was performed using datasets of 120 HDR prostate patients from 6 different physicians in a single institution. The original plans were prescribed to 15Gy (with EBRT to follow). No changes were made to catheter placement, dwell positions, or contours. An in-house software, a linear optimizer with bounded and unbounded constraints, was used to elevate the dose to the entire gland to 24 Gy with no manual manipulation of the optimized plan/dwell times. The resulting plans were compared with published results of single fraction external beam plans to a dose of 24Gy, using the same dosimetric constraints [1]. Prostate D50%, Dmean, D95%, D2%, V24Gy, and V21.6Gy were reported, as well as OAR constraints D1cc for the rectum and urethra. Brachytherapy vs external beam prostate median metrics were 31.4 vs 24.5 Gy for Dmean; 22.1 vs 22.1 Gy for D95%; 79.8 vs 84.8% for V24Gy; 96.2 vs 96.2% for V21.6Gy. D1cc median metrics were 10.6 vs 18.5Gy for urethra and 18.2 vs 18.8Gy for rectum. Dose escalation to the prostate was feasible and achieved similar results to external beam single fraction radiotherapy in terms of target coverage and OAR constraints. Due to the inherent differences of radiation delivery, the dose distributions differ primarily in hotspots and non-homogeneity that could lead to clinical differences. Delivery uncertainty is believed to be lower in brachytherapy, resulting in shrinking of margins and more accurate placement and delivery of hotspots, if desired. The retrospective study was based upon fixed prior implant geometries, therefore further work to investigate the placement of needles to further optimize dose conformality is ongoing. [1] Greco C et al. Safety and Efficacy of Virtual Prostatectomy With Single-Dose Radiotherapy in Patients With Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From the PROSINT Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021 May 1;7(5):700-708.