Dose Escalation By Imrt And Organ Trackingin Prostate Cancer

100 %
0 %
Information about Dose Escalation By Imrt And Organ Trackingin Prostate Cancer
Health & Medicine

Published on March 1, 2009

Author: fovak

Source: slideshare.net

DOSE ESCALATION BY IMRT AND ORGAN TRACKING IN PROSTATE CANCER – ACUTE AND „EARLY LATE“ TOXICITY Vock J, Kemmerling L, Vetterli D, Manser P, Bigler R, Tille J, Behrensmeier F, Omlin A, Matzinger O, Gut P, Thalmann S, Mini R, Greiner RH, Aebersold DM Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Bern, Inselspital

Background SASRO 2005: • 18 patients 80 Gy IMRT/organ tracking • Assessment of acute toxicity • Analysis of dose volume histograms – organs at risk (bladder and rectum) – planning target volume

Objectives To assess toxicity of dose escalation to 80 Gy by use of IMRT and organ tracking • By describing toxicity to rectum and bladder during treatment and at follow-up of ≥ 6 mo • By comparing dose volume histograms (bladder wall and rectal wall) of patients with known constraints for late toxicity

Background – Effect of dose escalation on outcome Study Dose Effect Proton boost Shipley, IJROBP 1995 75.6 vs 67.2 Poorly diff. tumours (rand.) CGE Local control Zietman, JAMA 2005 79.2 vs 70.2 Biochemical control in low (rand.) Gy and higher risk group 3D CRT boost Pollack, IJROBP 2002 78 Gy vs Intermediate to high risk (rand.) 70 Gy FFF 3D CRT Dearneley, BJC 2005 74 vs 64 Gy Biochemical control (ns) (rand.) Hanks, IJROBP 2002 Dose (67 – Biochemical control and (prospective non rand.) 81 Gy) freedom from distant metastasis IMRT Leibel, Semin Oncol 81-86.4 Gy vs In all risk categories benefit of 2003 (retrospective) dose escalation (PSA relapse 75.6 Gy vs free survival) 64.8-70.2 Gy

Background – Toxicity and dose escalation Study Toxicity score Method/constraint Effect 3D CRT Boersma, IJROBP RTOG/EORTC, Rectal wall Cutoff levels for 1998 LENT/SOMA V 65 40% severe rectal (adapted) V 70 30% bleeding V 75 5% IMRT Leibel, Semin Oncol RTOG 81 Gy IMRT vs Grade 2-3 late 2003 81 Gy 3D CRT rectal bleeding Grade 2(-3) late 75.6-81 vs 64.8-70.2 rectal bleeding 3D CRT 86.4 vs 81 Gy IMRT Constraints Rectal wall V 47 <53% Bladder wall V 47 <53%

Patients and Methods • 42 prostate cancer patients treated with 80 Gy (IMRT and organ tracking) between 06/2004 and 12/2005 34 patients with follow-up of ≥ 6 months (median 9, • range 6–16) included in this presentation • Median age 68 (54–82) years • Risk of recurrence: 18 pts high, 8 intermediate, 8 low NCCN guidelines, www.nccn.com • 24/34 pts concomitant androgen deprivation

Patients and Methods • Implantation of 3 fiducial gold markers into prostate guided by endorectal ultrasound before IMRT planning • MRI/planning CT image fusion in 28/34 patients CTV = prostate ± base of seminal vesicles • (included if risk of seminal vesicle involvement > 15%, 19/34 pts) Roach III: PSVinvolvement = PSA + (Gleason score – 6) x 10 Roach, J Urol 1993

Patients and Methods • PTV = CTV and 3/5 mm margins Vetterli, Radiother Oncol 2006 (accepted) • Inverse planning and DVH analysis using Eclipse® TPS • IMRT delivered by dynamic MLC / sliding window • Organ tracking: daily use of EPID with dose saving acquisition mode RadMode Vetterli, Med Phys 31 (4), April 2004

Patients and Methods Urinary and rectal symptoms scored according to the CTC scale (version 2.0) • Before treatment onset • During treatment • At a median follow-up of 9 (6-16) months

Urinary toxicity CTC vs. 2.0

Rectal toxicity CTC vs. 2.0

Results: Conformity 95% isodose

DVH Rectal mucosa Volume [%] Median and range of 42 patients 100 90 80 70 60 < 53 % ¹ 50 < 40 % ² 40 < 30 % ² 30 20 15.1 <5%² 10 9.4 7.3 3.8 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Dose [Gy] = Constraints for grade ≥ 2 toxicity ¹ Leibel et al, Semin Oncol, 2003; ² Boersma et al, IJROBP, 1998

DVH Bladder wall Volume % Median and range of 42 patients 100 90 80 70 60 < 53 % 50 40 27,9 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Dose [Gy] = Constraints for grade ≥ 2 toxicity Leibel et al, Semin Oncol, 2003

Rectal toxicity Rectal symptoms during treatment (34 patients) 100 Percent of patients 90 80 70 Grade 1 60 50 Grade 2 40 Grade 3 30 20 10 0 Diarrhea Rectal pain Rectal bleeding

Rectal toxicity Rectal symptoms at follow-up (34 patients) 100 Percent of patients 90 80 70 Grade 1 60 50 Grade 2 40 Grade 3 30 20 10 0 Diarrhea Rectal pain Rectal bleeding

Rectal toxicity Grade 1 or more rectal symptoms before treatment, during treatment and at follow-up (34 patients) 100 Percent of patients 90 80 70 pretreatment 60 50 acute 40 follow-up 30 20 10 0 Diarrhea Rectal pain Rectal bleeding Hemorrhoids = risk factor for late rectal bleeding Cheung, IJROBP 2004

Urinary toxicity Urinary symptoms during treatment (34 patients) 100 Percent of patients 90 80 70 Grade 1 60 50 Grade 2 40 Grade 3 30 20 10 0 ria ia n ce e io rg ur en u nt /u at lg in te cy em A nt re en H co y u ar In eq rin Fr U

Urinary toxicity Urinary symptoms at follow-up (34 patients) 100 Percent of patients 90 80 70 Grade 1 60 50 Grade 2 40 Grade 3 30 20 10 0 ia ria n e e nc io rg ur u nt /u e at lg in te cy em A nt re en H co y u ar In eq rin Fr U

Urinary toxicity Grade 2 or more urinary symptoms before treatment, during treatment and at follow-up (34 patients) 100 Percent of patients 90 80 70 pretreatment 60 50 acute 40 follow-up 30 20 10 0 n ia ge ce ia io ur ur en ur nt lg at y/ in te A em nc nt re co ue H y ar In eq rin Fr U Impact of pretreatment symptoms on late toxicity Peeters, IJROBP 2005

Conclusion • Dose-escalated IMRT with 80 Gy and organ tracking is generally well tolerated. It leads to limited acute and „early late“ urinary toxicity and minimal rectal toxicity. • Follow-up studies to assess long-term toxicity (and efficacy) are necessary.

Moderation is a fatal thing. . . Nothing succeeds like excess. (Oscar Wilde)

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

Dose-escalation for prostate cancer IMRT, IGRT, Immobilization

Dose-escalation for prostate cancer IMRT, ... MDACC DoseMDACC Dose-escalation Study Updateescalation ... Help define the prostate target and organs at risk ...
Read more

Radiation Oncology/Prostate/External Beam RT/Dose Escalation

< Radiation Oncology‎ | Prostate ... Treated for Localized Prostate Cancer" 3D-CRT/IMRT to 79.2 Gy ... -- Dose escalation for localized prostate cancer: ...
Read more

The Impact of Dose Escalation on Secondary Cancer Risk ...

... After Radiotherapy of Prostate Cancer" on DeepDyve ... The organ equivalent dose ... dose escalation for prostate RT is expected to be ...
Read more

Acute and late toxicity in prostate cancer patients ...

... therapy (IMRT) in prostate cancer. ... dose escalation in prostate cancer: ... DM: Daily organ tracking in intensity ...
Read more

IMRT for prostate cancer: defining target volume based on ...

IMRT for prostate cancer: ... prostate cancer to maximize the dose escalation and ... of IMRT to maximize its ability to escalate dose and ...
Read more

IMRT for prostate cancer - Rad Magazine The

IMRT for prostate cancer RAD Magazine, 42 ... whereby dose escalation can be achieved to specific ... (IMRT) in prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2000 ...
Read more

A comparison of HDR brachytherapy and IMRT techniques for ...

A comparison of HDR brachytherapy and IMRT techniques for dose escalation in prostate cancer: ... Modeling of organ motion uncertainties yields mean ...
Read more

Dose-escalated hypofractionated IMRT for localized ...

Dose-escalated hypofractionated IMRT for localized ... or dose-escalated hypofractionated IMRT ... Men with organ-confined prostate cancer were ...
Read more