Logo Logo
Help
Contact
Switch Language to German
Hysing, Liv B.; Ekanger, Christian; Zolnay, Andras; Helle, Svein Inge; Rasi, Mana; Heijmen, Ben J. M.; Sikora, Marcin; Söhn, Matthias; Muren, Ludvig Paul; Thornqvist, Sara (2018): Statistical motion modelling for robust evaluation of clinically delivered accumulated dose distributions after curative radiotherapy of locally advanced prostate cancer. In: Radiotherapy and Oncology, Vol. 128, No. 2: pp. 327-335
Full text not available from 'Open Access LMU'.

Abstract

Background and purpose: Planned doses are used as surrogate for the actually delivered dose in radiotherapy. We have estimated the delivered dose in a dose-escalation trial of locally advanced prostate cancer by statistical dose-accumulation and by DVH-summation, and compared to planned dose. Materials and method: Prescribed dose-escalation to the prostate was 67.5 Gy/25fr., corresponding to 81GyEQD2 assuming alpha/beta = 1.5. The 21 patients had three targets (i.e. CTV67.5 + 2 mm, CTV60 + 5 mm, CTV50 + 10 mm) irradiated by a simultaneous-integrated-boost technique. Analysis was based on 213 CT scans and 5-years of follow-up. For statistical dose-accumulation, we modelled 10000 possible treatment courses based on planned dose and deformation-vector-fields from contour-based registration. For DVH-summation we recalculated dose on repeat-CTs and estimated median D98%/EUD. Groups with/without disease recurrence were compared. Results: Discrepancies between planned and accumulated dose were mostly seen for CTV67.5, where under-dosage was found at different locations in the prostate in 12/21 patients. Delivered dose-escalation (D98%) was on average 73.9GyEQD2 (range: 68.3-78.7GyEQD2). No significant difference in accumulated-D98% was found in patients with (n = 8) and without (n = 13) recurrence (p > 0.05). Average D98%/EUD with statistical dose-accumulation vs DVH-summation was significantly different in CTV60, CTV50, rectum and bladder but not in CTV67.5. Conclusion: The planned dose escalation was not received by more than half-of-the patients. Robustness of the prostate target (CTV67.5) should therefore be better prioritized in these patients given the low toxicity profile. Estimates of delivered dose were less conservative for dose-accumulation due to interaction of random organ motion with the dose matrix.