A treatment planning study comparing IMRT techniques and cyber knife for stereotactic body radiotherapy of low-risk prostate carcinoma

• Published in: Radiation oncology (London, England) Vol. 14; no. 1; pp. 143 - 10
• Main Authors: Scobioala, Sergiu, Kittel, Christopher, Elsayad, Khaled, Kroeger, Kai, Oertel, Michael, Samhouri, Laith, Haverkamp, Uwe, Eich, Hans Theodor
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 09.08.2019; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Aged; Carcinoma; Control; Cyber knife; Dosimetric indices; Humans; Intensity-modulated radiotherapy; Male; Middle Aged; Normal tissue complication probability; Organs at Risk - radiation effects; Prognosis; Prostate cancer; Prostate carcinoma; Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery; Radiation (Physics); Radiosurgery; Radiosurgery - methods; Radiotherapy; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods; Random Allocation; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Stereotactic radiotherapy; Toxicity; Prostate carcinoma; Intensity-modulated radiotherapy; Normal tissue complication probability; Cyber knife; Dosimetric indices; Stereotactic radiotherapy
• ISSN: 1748-717X; 1748-717X
• DOI: 10.1186/s13014-019-1353-6

Comparing radiation treatment plans by using the same safety margins and dose objectives for all techniques, to ascertain the optimal radiation technique for the stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of low-risk prostate cancer. Treatment plans for 27 randomly selected patients were compared using intensity-modulated (IMRT) techniques as Sliding Window (SW), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and helical tomotherapy (HT), as well as Cyber Knife (CK) system. The target dose was calculated to 36.25 Gy delivered in five fractions over 1 week. Dosimetric indices for target volume and organs at risk (OAR) as well as normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of late rectal and urinary bladder toxicities were analyzed. The CK provided lower homogeneity in the target volume, but higher values for most of the conformity indices compared to the IMRT approaches. The SW demonstrated superior rectum sparing at medium-to-high dose range (V18 Gy - V32.6 Gy) compared to other techniques (p < 0.05). The whole urinary bladder experienced the best shielding by SW and VMAT at the medium dose (V18 Gy, p < 0.05 versus CK), however we obtained no relevant differences between techniques at the high dose. Generally, the CK demonstrated significantly superior rectum and bladder exposure at V18 Gy as compared to HT, SW, and VMAT. For the rectum, mean NTCP values were significantly superior for HT (NTCP = 2.3%, p < 0.05), and for urinary bladder, the NTCP showed no significant advantages for any technique. No absolute dosimetric advantage was revealed to choose between CK or IMRT techniques for the SBRT of low-grade prostate cancer. Using the same safety margins and dose objectives, IMRT techniques demonstrated superior sparing of the rectum and bladder at a medium dose compared to CK. Comparing different IMRT approaches SW displayed superior rectum sparing at a medium-to-high dose range, whereas both SW and RA revealed superior bladder sparing compared to HT. HT demonstrated a significantly lower NTCP outcome compared to CK or IMRT techniques regarding the rectum. Radiation plans can be optimized further by an individual modification of dose objectives independent of the treatment plan strategy.