What do we know about the α/β for prostate cancer?

Since last decade, the debate on the parameter which reflects prostate cancer sensitivity to fractionation in a radiotherapy treatment, the α/β, has become extensive. Unlike most tumors, the low labeling indices (LI) and large potential doubling time that characterize the prostate tumor led some authors to consider that it may behave as a late responding tissue. So far, the existing studies with regard to this subject point to a low value of α/β, around 2.7 Gy, which may be considered as a therapeutic gain in relation to surrounding normal tissues by using fewer and larger fractions. The aim of this paper is to review several estimates that have been made in the last few years regarding the prostate cancer α/β both from clinical and experimental data, as well as the set of factors that have potentially influenced these evaluations.

Alternative regimens for prostate cancer treatment using radiation therapy

Purpose/Objective: The purpose of this work was to determine biologically equivalent alternative regimens for the treatment of prostate cancer using External Beam Radiotherapy (EBRT) and Low Dose-Rate Brachytherapy (LDRBT) with 125I implants and to evaluate the sensitivity of these regimens to different sets of radiobiological parameters of the Linear-Quadratic (LQ) model.

The use of non-standard CT conversion ramps for Monte Carlo verification of 6 MV prostate IMRT plans

Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation algorithms have been widely used to verify the accuracy of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) dose distributions computed by conventional algorithms due to the ability to precisely account for the effects of tissue inhomogeneities and multileaf collimator characteristics. Both algorithms present, however, a particular difference in terms of dose calculation and report. Whereas dose from conventional methods is traditionally computed and reported as the water-equivalent dose (Dw), MC dose algorithms calculate and report dose to medium (Dm). In order to compare consistently both methods, the conversion of MC Dm into Dw is therefore necessary. This study aims to assess the effect of applying the conversion of MC-based Dm distributions to Dw for prostate IMRT plans generated for 6 MV photon beams. MC phantoms were created from the patient CT images using three different ramps to convert CT numbers into material and mass density: a conventional four material ramp (CTCREATE) and two simplified CT conversion ramps: (1) air and water with variable densities and (2) air and water with unit density. MC simulations were performed using the BEAMnrc code for the treatment head simulation and the DOSXYZnrc code for the patient dose calculation. The conversion of Dm to Dw by scaling with the stopping power ratios of water to medium was also performed in a post-MC calculation process. The comparison of MC dose distributions calculated in conventional and simplified (water with variable densities) phantoms showed that the effect of material composition on dose-volume histograms (DVH) was less than 1% for soft tissue and about 2.5% near and inside bone structures. The effect of material density on DVH was less than 1% for all tissues through the comparison of MC distributions performed in the two simplified phantoms considering water. Additionally, MC dose distributions were compared with the predictions from an Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS), which employed a pencil beam convolution (PBC) algorithm with Modified Batho Power Law heterogeneity correction. Eclipse PBC and MC calculations (conventional and simplified phantoms) agreed well (<1%) for soft tissues. For femoral heads, differences up to 3% were observed between the DVH for Eclipse PBC and MC calculated in conventional phantoms. The use of the CT conversion ramp of water with variable densities for MC simulations showed no dose discrepancies (0.5%) with the PBC algorithm. Moreover, converting Dm to Dw using mass stopping power ratios resulted in a significant shift (up to 6%) in the DVH for the femoral heads compared to the Eclipse PBC one. Our results show that, for prostate IMRT plans delivered with 6 MV photon beams, no conversion of MC dose from medium to water using stopping power ratio is needed. In contrast, MC dose calculations using water with variable density may be a simple way to solve the problem found using the dose conversion method based on the stopping power ratio.

Helical tomotherapy versus 3D conformal radiotherapy in dosimetric planning for patients with localized prostate cancer

Radiotherapy is one of the therapeutics selected for localized prostate cancer, in cases where the tumour is confined to the prostate, penetrates the prostatic capsule or has reached the seminal vesicles (T1 to T3 stages). The radiation therapy can be administered through various modalities, being historically used the 3D conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT). Other modality of radiation administration is the intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), that allows an increase of the total dose through modulation of the treatment beams, enabling a reduction in toxicity. One way to administer IMRT is through helical tomotherapy (TH). With this study we intent to analyze the advantages of helical tomotherapy when compared with 3DCRT, by evaluating the doses in the organs at risk (OAR) and planning target volumes (PTV).

Statistical analysis of quality control measurements in IMRT for head and neck and prostate cancer

Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) is a technique introduced to shape more precisely the dose distributions to the tumour, providing a higher dose escalation in the volume to irradiate and simultaneously decreasing the dose in the organs at risk which consequently reduces the treatment toxicity. This technique is widely used in prostate and head and neck (H&N) tumours. Given the complexity and the use of high doses in this technique it’s necessary to ensure as a safe and secure administration of the treatment, through the use of quality control programmes for IMRT. The purpose of this study was to evaluate statistically the quality control measurements that are made for the IMRT plans in prostate and H&N patients, before the beginning of the treatment, analysing their variations, the percentage of rejected and repeated measurements, the average, standard deviations and the proportion relations.

Dosimetric effect of tissue heterogeneity for 125I prostate implants

Aim - To use Monte Carlo (MC) together with voxel phantoms to analyze the tissue heterogeneity effect in the dose distributions and equivalent uniform dose (EUD) for (125)I prostate implants. Background - Dose distribution calculations in low dose-rate brachytherapy are based on the dose deposition around a single source in a water phantom. This formalism does not take into account tissue heterogeneities, interseed attenuation, or finite patient dimensions effects. Tissue composition is especially important due to the photoelectric effect. Materials and Methods - The computed tomographies (CT) of two patients with prostate cancer were used to create voxel phantoms for the MC simulations. An elemental composition and density were assigned to each structure. Densities of the prostate, vesicles, rectum and bladder were determined through the CT electronic densities of 100 patients. The same simulations were performed considering the same phantom as pure water. Results were compared via dose-volume histograms and EUD for the prostate and rectum. Results - The mean absorbed doses presented deviations of 3.3-4.0% for the prostate and of 2.3-4.9% for the rectum, when comparing calculations in water with calculations in the heterogeneous phantom. In the calculations in water, the prostate D 90 was overestimated by 2.8-3.9% and the rectum D 0.1cc resulted in dose differences of 6-8%. The EUD resulted in an overestimation of 3.5-3.7% for the prostate and of 7.7-8.3% for the rectum. Conclusions - The deposited dose was consistently overestimated for the simulation in water. In order to increase the accuracy in the determination of dose distributions, especially around the rectum, the introduction of the model-based algorithms is recommended.

Tissue composition and density impact on the clinical parameters for 125I prostate implants dosimetry

The MCNPX code was used to calculate the TG-43U1 recommended parameters in water and prostate tissue in order to quantify the dosimetric impact in 30 patients treated with (125)I prostate implants when replacing the TG-43U1 formalism parameters calculated in water by a prostate-like medium in the planning system (PS) and to evaluate the uncertainties associated with Monte Carlo (MC) calculations. The prostate density was obtained from the CT of 100 patients with prostate cancer. The deviations between our results for water and the TG-43U1 consensus dataset values were -2.6% for prostate V100, -13.0% for V150, and -5.8% for D90; -2.0% for rectum V100, and -5.1% for D0.1; -5.0% for urethra D10, and -5.1% for D30. The same differences between our water and prostate results were all under 0.3%. Uncertainties estimations were up to 2.9% for the gL(r) function, 13.4% for the F(r,θ) function and 7.0% for Λ, mainly due to seed geometry uncertainties. Uncertainties in extracting the TG-43U1 parameters in the MC simulations as well as in the literature comparison are of the same order of magnitude as the differences between dose distributions computed for water and prostate-like medium. The selection of the parameters for the PS should be done carefully, as it may considerably affect the dose distributions. The seeds internal geometry uncertainties are a major limiting factor in the MC parameters deduction.