Dosimetric Comparison of Ultra-Hypofractionated and Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy Boosts for Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer
Recent comparison of an ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy (UF-RT) boost to a conventionally fractionated (CF-RT) option showed similar toxicity and disease control outcomes. An analysis of the treatment plans for these patients is needed for evaluating calculated doses for different organs, treatm...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-03-01
|
| Series: | Life |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/12/3/394 |
| _version_ | 1797446037643722752 |
|---|---|
| author | Tomasz Piotrowski Slav Yartsev Jaroslaw Krawczyk Marta Adamczyk Agata Jodda Julian Malicki Piotr Milecki |
| author_facet | Tomasz Piotrowski Slav Yartsev Jaroslaw Krawczyk Marta Adamczyk Agata Jodda Julian Malicki Piotr Milecki |
| author_sort | Tomasz Piotrowski |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Recent comparison of an ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy (UF-RT) boost to a conventionally fractionated (CF-RT) option showed similar toxicity and disease control outcomes. An analysis of the treatment plans for these patients is needed for evaluating calculated doses for different organs, treatment beam-on time, and requirements for human and financial resources. Eighty-six plans for UF-RT and 93 plans for CF-RT schemes were evaluated. The biologically equivalent dose, EQD2, summed for the first phase and the boost, was calculated for dose-volume parameters for organs at risk (OARs), as well as for the PTV1. ArcCHECK measurements for the boost plans were used for a comparison of planned and delivered doses. Monitor units and beam-on times were recorded by the Eclipse treatment planning system. Statistical analysis was performed with a significance level of 0.05. Dosimetric parameter values for OARs were well within tolerance for both groups. EQD2 for the PTV1 was on average 84 Gy for UF-RT patients and 76 Gy for CF-RT patients. Gamma passing rate for planned/delivered doses comparison was above 98% for both groups with 3 mm/3% distance to agreement/dose difference criteria. Total monitor units per fraction were 647 ± 94 and 2034 ± 570 for CF-RT and UF-RT, respectively. The total delivery time for boost radiation for the patients in the UF-RT arm was, on average, four times less than the total time for a conventional regimen with statistically equal clinical outcomes for the two arms in this study. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T13:34:32Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d15126eef89840758371f4f1bcfea9bd |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2075-1729 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T13:34:32Z |
| publishDate | 2022-03-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Life |
| spelling | doaj.art-d15126eef89840758371f4f1bcfea9bd2023-11-30T21:14:05ZengMDPI AGLife2075-17292022-03-0112339410.3390/life12030394Dosimetric Comparison of Ultra-Hypofractionated and Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy Boosts for Patients with High-Risk Prostate CancerTomasz Piotrowski0Slav Yartsev1Jaroslaw Krawczyk2Marta Adamczyk3Agata Jodda4Julian Malicki5Piotr Milecki6Department of Electroradiology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-866 Poznan, PolandDepartment of Biophysics, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 5C1, CanadaRadiotherapy Department I, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, 61-866 Poznan, PolandDepartment of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, 61-866 Poznan, PolandDepartment of Medical Physics, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, 61-866 Poznan, PolandDepartment of Electroradiology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-866 Poznan, PolandDepartment of Electroradiology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-866 Poznan, PolandRecent comparison of an ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy (UF-RT) boost to a conventionally fractionated (CF-RT) option showed similar toxicity and disease control outcomes. An analysis of the treatment plans for these patients is needed for evaluating calculated doses for different organs, treatment beam-on time, and requirements for human and financial resources. Eighty-six plans for UF-RT and 93 plans for CF-RT schemes were evaluated. The biologically equivalent dose, EQD2, summed for the first phase and the boost, was calculated for dose-volume parameters for organs at risk (OARs), as well as for the PTV1. ArcCHECK measurements for the boost plans were used for a comparison of planned and delivered doses. Monitor units and beam-on times were recorded by the Eclipse treatment planning system. Statistical analysis was performed with a significance level of 0.05. Dosimetric parameter values for OARs were well within tolerance for both groups. EQD2 for the PTV1 was on average 84 Gy for UF-RT patients and 76 Gy for CF-RT patients. Gamma passing rate for planned/delivered doses comparison was above 98% for both groups with 3 mm/3% distance to agreement/dose difference criteria. Total monitor units per fraction were 647 ± 94 and 2034 ± 570 for CF-RT and UF-RT, respectively. The total delivery time for boost radiation for the patients in the UF-RT arm was, on average, four times less than the total time for a conventional regimen with statistically equal clinical outcomes for the two arms in this study.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/12/3/394prostateultra-hypofractionated radiation therapydosimetric comparisondose metricscomplexity |
| spellingShingle | Tomasz Piotrowski Slav Yartsev Jaroslaw Krawczyk Marta Adamczyk Agata Jodda Julian Malicki Piotr Milecki Dosimetric Comparison of Ultra-Hypofractionated and Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy Boosts for Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer Life prostate ultra-hypofractionated radiation therapy dosimetric comparison dose metrics complexity |
| title | Dosimetric Comparison of Ultra-Hypofractionated and Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy Boosts for Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer |
| title_full | Dosimetric Comparison of Ultra-Hypofractionated and Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy Boosts for Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer |
| title_fullStr | Dosimetric Comparison of Ultra-Hypofractionated and Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy Boosts for Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer |
| title_full_unstemmed | Dosimetric Comparison of Ultra-Hypofractionated and Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy Boosts for Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer |
| title_short | Dosimetric Comparison of Ultra-Hypofractionated and Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy Boosts for Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer |
| title_sort | dosimetric comparison of ultra hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiation therapy boosts for patients with high risk prostate cancer |
| topic | prostate ultra-hypofractionated radiation therapy dosimetric comparison dose metrics complexity |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/12/3/394 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT tomaszpiotrowski dosimetriccomparisonofultrahypofractionatedandconventionallyfractionatedradiationtherapyboostsforpatientswithhighriskprostatecancer AT slavyartsev dosimetriccomparisonofultrahypofractionatedandconventionallyfractionatedradiationtherapyboostsforpatientswithhighriskprostatecancer AT jaroslawkrawczyk dosimetriccomparisonofultrahypofractionatedandconventionallyfractionatedradiationtherapyboostsforpatientswithhighriskprostatecancer AT martaadamczyk dosimetriccomparisonofultrahypofractionatedandconventionallyfractionatedradiationtherapyboostsforpatientswithhighriskprostatecancer AT agatajodda dosimetriccomparisonofultrahypofractionatedandconventionallyfractionatedradiationtherapyboostsforpatientswithhighriskprostatecancer AT julianmalicki dosimetriccomparisonofultrahypofractionatedandconventionallyfractionatedradiationtherapyboostsforpatientswithhighriskprostatecancer AT piotrmilecki dosimetriccomparisonofultrahypofractionatedandconventionallyfractionatedradiationtherapyboostsforpatientswithhighriskprostatecancer |