Open AccessDosimetric advantages of daily adaptive strategy in IMPT for high‐risk prostate cancer
Author(s) -
Tamura Hiroshi,
Kobashi Keiji,
Nishioka Kentaro,
Yoshimura Takaaki,
Hashimoto Takayuki,
Shimizu Shinichi,
Ito Yoichi M.,
Maeda Yoshikazu,
Sasaki Makoto,
Yamamoto Kazutaka,
Tamamura Hiroyasu,
Aoyama Hidefumi,
Shirato Hiroki
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
journal of applied clinical medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.83
H-Index - 48
ISSN - 1526-9914
DOI - 10.1002/acm2.13531
Subject(s) - prostate cancer , proton therapy , rectum , prostate , medicine , nuclear medicine , radiation therapy , dosimetry , radiation treatment planning , cancer , radiology
Purpose To evaluate the dosimetric advantages of daily adaptive radiotherapy (DART) in intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for high‐risk prostate cancer by comparing estimated doses of the conventional non‐adaptive radiotherapy (NART) that irradiates according to an original treatment plan through the entire treatment and the DART that uses an adaptive treatment plan generated by using daily CT images acquired before each treatment. Methods Twenty‐three patients with prostate cancer were included. A treatment plan with 63 Gy (relative biological effectiveness (RBE)) in 21 fractions was generated using treatment planning computed tomography (CT) images assuming that all patients had high‐risk prostate cancer for which the clinical target volume (CTV) needs to include prostate and the seminal vesicle (SV) in our treatment protocol. Twenty‐one adaptive treatment plans for each patient (total 483 data sets) were generated using daily CT images, and dose distributions were calculated. Using a 3 mm set‐up uncertainty in the robust optimization, the doses to the CTV, prostate, SV, rectum, and bladder were compared. Results Estimated accumulated doses of NART and DART in the 23 patients were 60.81 ± 3.47 Gy (RBE) and 63.24 ± 1.04 Gy (RBE) for CTV D99 ( p < 0.01), 62.99 ± 1.28 Gy (RBE) and 63.43 ± 1.33 Gy (RBE) for the prostate D99 ( p = 0.2529), and 59.07 ± 5.19 Gy (RBE) and 63.17 ± 1.04 Gy (RBE) for SV D99 ( p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between NART and DART in the estimated accumulated dose for the rectum and bladder. Conclusion Compared with the NART, DART was shown to be a useful approach that can maintain the dose coverage to the target without increasing the dose to the organs at risk (OAR) using the 3 mm set‐up uncertainty in the robust optimization in patients with high‐risk prostate cancer.