Implementation of intensity modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer in a private radiotherapy service in Mexico.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Poitevin-Chacon MA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4268590 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Implementation of intensity modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer in a private radiotherapy service in Mexico.
Poitevin-Chacón María Adela MA Reséndiz González Gabriel G Alvarado Zermeño Adriana A Flores Castro Jesús Manuel JM Flores Balcázar Christian Haydée CH Rosales Pérez Samuel S Pérez Pastenes Miguel Angel MA Rodríguez Laguna Alejandro A Vázquez Fernández Patricio P Calvo Fernández Alejandro A Bastida Ventura Jorge J
Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology 20141212 1
Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) allows physicians to deliver higher conformal doses to the tumour, while avoiding adjacent structures. As a result the probability of tumour control is higher and toxicity may be reduced. However, implementation of IMRT is highly complex and requires a rigorous quality assurance (QA) program both before and during treatment. The present article describes the process of implementing IMRT for localized prostate cancer in a radiation therapy department. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Radiation therapy (RT) is a curative treatment modality for localized prostate cancer. Over the past two decades, advances in technology and imaging have considerably changed RT in prostate cancer treatment. Treatment has evolved from 2-dimensional (2D) planning using X-ray fields based on pelvic bony landmarks to 3-dimensional (3D) conformal RT (CRT) which uses computed tomography (CT) based planning. Despite improvements with 3D-CRT, dose distributions often remained suboptimal with portions of the rectum and bladder receiving unacceptably high doses. In more recent years, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has become the standard of care to deliver external beam RT. IMRT uses multiple radiation beams of different shapes and intensities delivered from a wide range of angles to 'paint' the radiation dose onto the tumor. IMRT allows for a higher dose of radiation to be delivered to the prostate while reducing dose to surrounding organs. Multiple clinical trials have demonstrated improved cancer outcomes with dose escalation, but toxicities using 3D-CRT and escalated doses have been problematic. IMRT is a method to deliver dose escalated RT with more conformal dose distributions than 3D-CRT and has been associated with improved toxicity profiles. IMRT also appears to be the safest method to deliver hypofractionated RT and pelvic lymph node radiation. The purpose of this review is to summarize the technical aspects of IMRT planning and delivery, and to review the literature supporting the use of IMRT for prostate cancer.
| S-EPMC6043750 | biostudies-other
Project description:In this study, we present an intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique based on forward planning dose calculations to provide a concave dose distribution to the prostate and seminal vesicles by means of modified dynamic arc therapy (M-DAT). Dynamic arcs (350 degrees) conforming to the beam's eye view of the prostate and seminal vesicles while shielding the rectum, combined with two lateral oblique conformal fields (15 degrees with respect to laterals) fitting the prostate only,were applied to deliver doses of 78 Gy and 61.23 Gy in 39 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles respectively. Dynamic wedges (45 degrees of thick end, anteriorly oriented) were used with conformal beams to adjust the dose homogeneity to the prostate, although in some cases, hard wedges (30 degrees of thick part,inferiorly oriented) were used with arcs to adjust the dose coverage to the seminal vesicles. The M-DAT was applied to 10 patients in supine and 10 patients in prone positioning to determine the proper patient positioning for optimum protection of the rectum. The M-DAT was compared with the simplified intensity-modulated arc therapy (SIMAT) technique, composed of three phases of bilateral dynamic arcs. The mean rectal dose in M-DAT for prone patients was 22.5 +/- 5.1 Gy; in M-DAT and SIMAT for supine patients, it was 30.2 +/- 5.1 Gy and 39.4 +/- 6.0 Gy respectively. The doses to 15%, 25%, 35%, and 50% of the rectum volume in M-DAT for prone patients were 44.5 +/- 10.2 Gy, 33.0 +/- 8.2 Gy, 25.3 +/- 6.4 Gy, and 16.3 +/- 5.6 Gy respectively. These values were lower than those in M-DAT and in SIMAT for supine patients by 7.7%, 18.2%, 22.4%, and 28.5% and by 25.0%, 32.1%, 34.9%, and 41.9% of the prescribed dose (78 Gy) respectively. Ion chamber measurements showed good agreement of the calculated and measured isocentric dose (maximum deviation of 3.5%). Accuracy of the dose distribution calculation was evaluated by film dosimetry using a gamma index, allowing 3% dose variation and 4 mm distance to agreement as the individual acceptance criteria in prostate and seminal vesicle levels alike for all supine and prone patients. We found that fewer than 10% of the pixels in the dose distribution of the calculated area of10 x 10-cm failed the acceptance criteria. These pixels were observed mainly in the low-dose regions, particularly at the level of the seminal vesicles. In conclusion, the single-phase M-DAT technique with patients in the prone position was found to provide the intended coverage of the prescribed doses to the prostate and seminal vesicles with improved protection for the rectum. Accordingly, M-DAT has replaced non-modulated conformal radiotherapy or SIMAT as the standard treatment for prostate cancer in our department.
| S-EPMC5722620 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDose-escalated hypofractionated radiotherapy (hfrt) using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (imrt), with inclusion of the pelvic lymph nodes (plns), plus androgen suppression therapy (ast) in high-risk prostate cancer patients should improve patient outcomes, but acute toxicity could limit its feasibility.MethodsOur single-centre phase ii prospective study enrolled 40 high-risk prostate cancer patients. All patients received hfrt using imrt with daily mega-voltage computed tomography imaging guidance, with 95% of planning target volumes (ptv68 and ptv50) receiving 68 Gy and 50 Gy (respectively) in 25 daily fractions. The boost volume was targeted to the involved plns and the prostate (minus the urethra plus 3 mm and minus 3 mm from adjacent rectal wall) and totalled up to 75 Gy in 25 fractions. Acute toxicity scores were recorded weekly during and 3 months after radiotherapy (rt) administration.ResultsFor the 37 patients who completed rt and the 3-month follow-up, median age was 65.5 years (range: 50-76 years). Disease was organ-confined (T1c-T2c) in 23 patients (62.1%), and node-positive in 5 patients (13.5%). All patients received long-term ast. Maximum acute genitourinary (gu) and gastrointestinal (gi) toxicity peaked at grade 2 in 6 of 36 evaluated patients (16.6%) and in 4 of 31 evaluated patients (12.9%) respectively. Diarrhea and urinary frequency were the chief complaints. Dose-volume parameters demonstrated no correlation with toxicity. The ptv treatment objectives were met in 36 of the 37 patients.ConclusionsThis hfrt dose-escalation trial in high-risk prostate cancer has demonstrated the feasibility of administering 75 Gy in 25 fractions with minimal acute gi and gu toxicities. Further follow-up will report late toxicities and outcomes.
| S-EPMC4399627 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeConformal radiation therapy in the postprostatectomy setting requires accurate setup and localization of the prostatic fossa. In this series, we report prostate bed localization and motion characteristics, using data collected from implanted radiofrequency transponders.Methods and materialsThe Calypso four-dimensional localization system uses three implanted radiofrequency transponders for daily target localization and real-time tracking throughout a course of radiation therapy. We reviewed the localization and tracking reports for 20 patients who received ultrasonography-guided placement of Calypso transponders within the prostate bed prior to a course of intensity-modulated radiation therapy at Fox Chase Cancer Center.ResultsAt localization, prostate bed displacement relative to bony anatomy exceeded 5 mm in 9% of fractions in the anterior-posterior (A-P) direction and 21% of fractions in the superior-inferior (S-I) direction. The three-dimensional vector length from skin marks to Calypso alignment exceeded 1 cm in 24% of all 652 fractions with available setup data. During treatment, the target exceeded the 5-mm tracking limit for at least 30 sec in 11% of all fractions, generally in the A-P or S-I direction. In the A-P direction, target motion was twice as likely to move posteriorly, toward the rectum, than anteriorly. Fifteen percent of all treatments were interrupted for repositioning, and 70% of patients were repositioned at least once during their treatment course.ConclusionSet-up errors and motion of the prostatic fossa during radiotherapy are nontrivial, leading to potential undertreatment of target and excess normal tissue toxicity if not taken into account during treatment planning. Localization and real-time tracking of the prostate bed via implanted Calypso transponders can be used to improve the accuracy of plan delivery.
| S-EPMC3285397 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is little evidence comparing complications after intensity-modulated (IMRT) vs. three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (CRT) for prostate cancer. The study objective was to test the hypothesis that IMRT, compared with CRT, is associated with a reduction in bowel, urinary, and erectile complications in elderly men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.We undertook an observational cohort study using registry and administrative claims data from the SEER-Medicare database. We identified men aged 65 years or older diagnosed with nonmetastatic prostate cancer in the United States between 2002 and 2004 who received IMRT (n = 5,845) or CRT (n = 6,753). The primary outcome was a composite measure of bowel complications. Secondary outcomes were composite measures of urinary and erectile complications. We also examined specific subsets of bowel (proctitis/hemorrhage) and urinary (cystitis/hematuria) events within the composite complication measures.IMRT was associated with reductions in composite bowel complications (24-month cumulative incidence 18.8% vs. 22.5%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.93) and proctitis/hemorrhage (HR 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95). IMRT was not associated with rates of composite urinary complications (HR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.04) or cystitis/hematuria (HR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83-1.07). The incidence of erectile complications involving invasive procedures was low and did not differ significantly between groups, although IMRT was associated with an increase in new diagnoses of impotence (HR 1.27, 95% CI, 1.14-1.42).IMRT is associated with a small reduction in composite bowel complications and proctitis/hemorrhage compared with CRT in elderly men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.
| S-EPMC4265571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProton radiotherapy (PRT) is an emerging treatment for prostate cancer despite limited knowledge of clinical benefit or potential harms compared with other types of radiotherapy. We therefore compared patterns of PRT use, cost, and early toxicity among Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer with those of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).MethodsWe performed a retrospective study of all Medicare beneficiaries aged greater than or equal to 66 years who received PRT or IMRT for prostate cancer during 2008 and/or 2009. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with receipt of PRT. To assess toxicity, each PRT patient was matched with two IMRT patients with similar clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. The main outcome measures were receipt of PRT or IMRT, Medicare reimbursement for each treatment, and early genitourinary, gastrointestinal, and other toxicity. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsWe identified 27,647 men; 553 (2%) received PRT and 27,094 (98%) received IMRT. Patients receiving PRT were younger, healthier, and from more affluent areas than patients receiving IMRT. Median Medicare reimbursement was $32,428 for PRT and $18,575 for IMRT. Although PRT was associated with a statistically significant reduction in genitourinary toxicity at 6 months compared with IMRT (5.9% vs 9.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38 to 0.96, P = .03), at 12 months post-treatment there was no difference in genitourinary toxicity (18.8% vs 17.5%; OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.54, P = .66). There was no statistically significant difference in gastrointestinal or other toxicity at 6 months or 12 months post-treatment.ConclusionsAlthough PRT is substantially more costly than IMRT, there was no difference in toxicity in a comprehensive cohort of Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer at 12 months post-treatment.
| S-EPMC3536640 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To study the impact of new, expensive, and unproven therapies to treat prostate cancer, we investigated the dissemination of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). IMRT is an innovative treatment for prostate cancer that delivers higher doses of radiation with improved precision compared to alternative radiotherapies. We observed rapid adoption of this new treatment among men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2001 through 2007, despite uncertainty about its relative effectiveness. We compared patient and disease characteristics of those receiving IMRT and the previous radiation standard of care, three-dimensional conformal therapy; assessed intermediate-term outcomes; and examined potential factors associated with the increased use of IMRT. We found that in the early period of IMRT adoption (2001-03) men with high-risk disease were more likely to receive IMRT, whereas after IMRT's initial dissemination (2004-07) men with low-risk disease had fairly similar likelihoods of receiving IMRT as men with high-risk disease. This raises concerns about overtreatment, as well as considerable health care costs, because treatment with IMRT costs $15,000-$20,000 more than other standard therapies. As health care delivery reforms gain traction, policy makers must balance the promotion of new, yet unproven, technology with the risk of overuse.
| S-EPMC3500551 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND/AIM:The aim of the study was to evaluate acute and late genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity in patients with high- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS:We evaluated data of patients from three Radiation Oncology Departments (Rome, Lübeck and Perugia). Patients treated in Rome underwent exclusive intensity-modulated-radiotherapy (IMRT) or IMRT plus high-dose-rate interventional radiotherapy (HDR-IRT). IMRT plus two fractions HDR-IRT was performed in Lübeck, while in Perugia Helical Tomotherapy was performed. The Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Event (Version 4.03) scale was used to describe acute and late toxicity. RESULTS:At a median follow-up of 28 months, all 51 patients were alive and disease-free. Patients treated by HDR-IRT plus VMAT showed only G1-2 genitourinary- gastrointestinal (GU-GI) acute and late toxicity. Univariate analysis showed a lower risk of acute GU toxicity (p=0.048) in IMRT+HDR-IRT. CONCLUSION:Low grade and less acute GU toxicity was observed in patients undergoing HDR-IRT boost.
| S-EPMC7279807 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:No study has reported clinical results of external-beam radiotherapy specifically for T3b prostate cancer. The possibility of escalating the dose to the involved seminal vesicles (ISV) while respecting the dose constraints in the organs at risk is thus so far not clearly demonstrated. The objective of the study was to analyze the dose distribution and the clinical outcome in a large series of patients who received IMRT for T3b prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS:This retrospective analysis included all patients who received IMRT and androgen deprivation therapy for T3b prostate cancer, between 2008 and 2017, in six French institutions, with available MRI images and dosimetric data. RESULTS:A total of 276 T3b patients were included. The median follow-up was 26 months. The median (range) prescribed doses (Gy) to the prostate and to the ISV were 77 (70-80) and 76 (46-80), respectively. The dose constraint recommendations were exceeded in less than 12% of patients for the rectum and the bladder. The 5-year risks of biochemical and clinical recurrences and cancer-specific death were 24.8%, 21.7%, and 10.3%, respectively. The 5-year risks of local, pelvic lymph node, and metastatic recurrences were 6.4%, 11.3%, and 15%, respectively. The number of involved lymph nodes (? 2 or ? 3) on MRI was the only significant prognostic factor in clinical recurrence (HR 9.86) and death (HR 2.78). Grade ? 2 acute and 5-year late toxicity rates were 13.2% and 12% for digestive toxicity, and 34% and 31.5% for urinary toxicity, respectively. The dose to the pelvic lymph node and the age were predictive of late digestive toxicity. CONCLUSION:IMRT for T3b prostate cancer allows delivery of a curative dose in the ISV, with a moderate digestive toxicity but a higher urinary toxicity. Lymph node involvement increases the risk of recurrence and death.
| S-EPMC6347455 | biostudies-other
Project description:The objective of this work was to assess the overall survival, cause-specific survival and biochemical failure-free survival of a contemporary cohort of patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or radical prostatectomy (RP).We did a retrospective cohort study of our institution's registry of patients undergoing either IMRT or RP between January 1999 and March 2010, and assessed Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), age at diagnosis, Gleason score, and digital rectal examination. Two groups were separated according to RP or IMRT treatment and these groups were in turn divided into risk groups according to the D'Amico classification. Overall survival (OS), cause-specific survival (CSS), mortality from other causes (MOC), and biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS) were assessed.Twelve-hundred patients were included: 993 in the RP group and 207 in the IMRT group.The IMRT group had older age, PSA at diagnosis and a significantly higher percentage of cancer on the needle biopsy (p <0.001). Of the 207 patients who underwent IMRT, 54% presented comorbidities. Median follow-up was 91.7 months for the RP group and 76 months for the IMRT group. The OS at 5 and 7 was 96.2, and 93.7 for the RP group respectively and 88.4, and 83.1 for the IMRT group respectively (p <0.001). There were no significant differences in the CSS in relation to treatment received among the low- and high-risk groups, while in the intermediate-risk group, patients who underwent to RP had a higher CSS than patients who underwent IMRT (99.6% vs 94.1%, p=0.003). The IMRT group had a significantly better BDFS than the RP group (86.4% vs. 74.3%, respectively, p=0.016).Patients treated with RP were significantly younger and had a better prognosis than patients treated using IMRT, and according to our results, RP had better outcomes in terms of OS while IMRT had greater MOC. Treatment modality did not affect the CSS.
| S-EPMC3833713 | biostudies-literature