Short-course intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer with daily transabdominal ultrasound localization of the prostate gland.

PURPOSE To present our initial observations on the clinical feasibility of the technique of short-course intensity-modulated radiotherapy (SCIM-RT) in the treatment of localized prostate cancer coupled with daily transabdominal ultrasound localization of the prostate. The proposed regimen consists of a hypofractionated course delivering 70.0 Gy in 28 fractions. METHODS AND MATERIALS The treatment data of the first 51 patients treated with SCIM-RT at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation are presented in this report. The technique consisted of intensity-modulated radiotherapy using 5 static fields (anterior, 2 laterals, and 2 anterior obliques). Inverse plans were generated by the Corvus treatment-planning system. The treatment delivery was performed with a Varian Dynamic Multileaf Collimator. The target was the prostate only in patients with low-risk disease (stage T1-T2, pretreatment PSA < or =10, and biopsy Gleason < or =6). The target was the prostate and seminal vesicles in patients with high-risk disease (stage T3 or pretreatment PSA > 10 or biopsy Gleason > or =7). In the Corvus planning system, the margins for the planning target volume (PTV) were 4 mm posteriorly, 8 mm laterally, and 5 mm in all other directions. A total of 70.0 Gy (mean prostate dose approximately 75 Gy) was prescribed in all cases at 2.5 Gy per fraction to be delivered in 28 fractions over 5 1/2 weeks. Prior to treatment delivery, the patients were minimally immobilized on the treatment table, only using lasers and skin marks. The location of the prostate gland was verified daily with the BAT transabdominal ultrasound system and patient position adjustments were performed accordingly. Fifty-one patients completed therapy between October 1998 and May 1999. RESULTS The dose was prescribed to an isodose line ranging from 82.0% to 90.0% (mean: 87.2%). The range of the individual prostate mean doses was 73.5 to 78.5 Gy (average: 75.3 Gy). The range of the maximum doses was 77.4 to 84.5 Gy (average: 80.2 Gy). The range of the minimum doses was 64.3 to 69.2 Gy (average: 67.5 Gy). The average time for the prostate position verification and alignment of the prostate using the BAT system was 5 minutes. The entire localization/alignment process was performed by the radiation therapists. The daily alignment images were automatically saved and reviewed by the radiation oncologist, a process similar to port film checks. The total treatment (beam-on) time was around 6 minutes using the 5 static intensity-modulated fields. The mean and standard deviation (SD) of bladder volumes irradiated to 50, 60, and 70 Gy were as follows: 24 +/- 11 cc, 16 +/- 8 cc, and 8 +/- 6 cc. The mean and SD of rectal volumes irradiated to 50, 60, and 70 Gy were as follows: 22 +/- 11 cc, 15 +/- 8 cc, and 7 +/- 5 cc. The RTOG acute bladder toxicity scores were as follows: 0 in 3 (6%), 1 in 38 (74%), and 2 in 10 (20%). The RTOG acute rectal toxicity scores for SCIM-RT cases were as follows: 0 in 10 (20%), 1 in 33 (65%), and 2 in 8 (16%). No Grade 3 or 4 acute toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION The delivery of our proposed hypofractionated-schedule SCIM-RT in combination with daily target localization/alignment with the BAT transabdominal ultrasound system is clinically feasible. It is an alternative method of dose escalation in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. The proposed schedule would significantly increase convenience to patients due to the decrease in overall treatment time. Preliminary acute toxicity results are extremely encouraging. Long-term follow-up is needed to assess late complications and treatment efficacy.

[1]  G J Kutcher,et al.  Variation in prostate position quantitation and implications for three-dimensional conformal treatment planning. , 1997, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[2]  F. Mauro,et al.  Differences in radiation sensitivity in subpopulations of mammalian multicellular systems. , 1979, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  A. Pollack,et al.  External beam radiotherapy for stage T1/T2 prostate cancer: how does it stack up? , 1998, Urology.

[4]  G J Kutcher,et al.  Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and dose escalation: where do we stand? , 1998, Seminars in radiation oncology.

[5]  P Kijewski,et al.  Analysis of prostate and seminal vesicle motion: implications for treatment planning. , 1996, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[6]  C. Pelizzari,et al.  Evaluation of changes in the size and location of the prostate, seminal vesicles, bladder, and rectum during a course of external beam radiation therapy. , 1995, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  William R. Fair,et al.  DOSE ESCALATION WITH THREE-DIMENSIONAL CONFORMAL RADIATION THERAPY AFFECTS THE OUTCOME IN PROSTATE CANCER , 1998 .

[8]  J. Crook,et al.  Prostate motion during standard radiotherapy as assessed by fiducial markers. , 1995, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[9]  C. Coleman,et al.  Analysis of prostate and seminal vesicle motion , 1993 .

[10]  D A Jaffray,et al.  The effects of intra-fraction organ motion on the delivery of dynamic intensity modulation. , 1998, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  P. Kupelian IMPROVEMENT IN OVERALL SURVIVAL FOR PATIENTS WITH LOCALIZED PROSTATE CANCER WITH HIGHER THAN STANDARD RADIATION DOSES: PRELIMINARY RESULTS , 1999 .

[12]  E. Klein,et al.  Indications for excluding the seminal vesicles when treating clinically localized prostatic adenocarcinoma with radiotherapy alone. , 1997, International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.

[13]  D J Brenner,et al.  Fractionation and protraction for radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[14]  J Pouliot,et al.  Electronic portal imaging device detection of radioopaque markers for the evaluation of prostate position during megavoltage irradiation: a clinical study. , 1997, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[15]  J. Lyons,et al.  Importance of radiation dose in the treatment of stage T1-T2 adenocarcinoma of the prostate , 1998 .

[16]  T E Schultheiss,et al.  Survival advantage for prostate cancer patients treated with high-dose three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. , 1999, The cancer journal from Scientific American.

[17]  A. Pollack,et al.  External beam radiotherapy dose response of prostate cancer. , 1997, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[18]  T E Schultheiss,et al.  Dose escalation with 3D conformal treatment: five year outcomes, treatment optimization, and future directions. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  M van Herk,et al.  Quantification of organ motion during conformal radiotherapy of the prostate by three dimensional image registration. , 1995, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[20]  H. Levin,et al.  Extent of extracapsular extension: Implications for planning for conformal radiotherapy and brachytherapy , 1998 .

[21]  G J Kutcher,et al.  Locally advanced prostatic cancer: long-term toxicity outcome after three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy--a dose-escalation study. , 1998, Radiology.