Is a 3-mm intrafractional margin sufficient for daily image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy of prostate cancer?

PURPOSE: To determine whether a 3-mm isotropic target margin adequately covers the prostate and seminal vesicles (SVs) during administration of an intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment fraction, assuming that daily image-guided setup is performed just before each fraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In-room computed tomographic (CT) scans were acquired immediately before and after a daily treatment fraction in 46 patients with prostate cancer. An eight-field IMRT plan was designed using the pre-fraction CT with a 3-mm margin and subsequently recalculated on the post-fraction CT. For convenience of comparison, dose plans were scaled to full course of treatment (75.6 Gy). Dose coverage was assessed on the post-treatment CT image set. RESULTS: During one treatment fraction (21.4+/-5.5 min), there were reductions in the volumes of the prostate and SVs receiving the prescribed dose (median reduction 0.1% and 1.0%, respectively, p<0.001) and in the minimum dose to 0.1 cm(3) of their volumes (median reduction 0.5 and 1.5 Gy, p<0.001). Of the 46 patients, three patients' prostates and eight patients' SVs did not maintain dose coverage above 70 Gy. Rectal filling correlated with decreased percentage-volume of SV receiving 75.6, 70, and 60 Gy (p<0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The 3-mm intrafractional margin was adequate for prostate dose coverage. However, a significant subset of patients lost SV dose coverage. The rectal volume change significantly affected SV dose coverage. For advanced-stage prostate cancers, we recommend to use larger margins or improve organ immobilization (such as with a rectal balloon) to ensure SV coverage.

GENETIC PREDICTORS OF HYPERGLYCEMIA DUE TO HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE THERAPY

Response to pharmacological treatment is variable among individuals. Some patients respond favorably to a drug while others develop adverse reactions. Early investigations showed evidence of variation in genes that code for drug receptors, drug transporters, and drug metabolizing enzymes; and pharmacogenetics appeared as the science that studies the relationship between drug response and genetic variation. Thiazide diuretics are the recommended first-line monotherapy for hypertension (i.e. SBP>140 or DBP>90). Even so, diuretics are associated with adverse metabolic side effects, such as hyperglycemia, which increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Published approaches testing variation in candidate genes (e.g. the renin-angiotensin-aldosteron system (RAAS) and salt–sensitivity genes) have met with only limited success. We conducted the first genome wide association study to identify genes influencing hyperglycemia as an adverse effect of thiazide diuretics in non-Hispanic White hypertensive patients participating in the Genetic Epidemiology of Responses to Antihypertensives (GERA) and Pharmacogenomic Evaluation of Antihypertensive Responses (PEAR) clinical trials. No SNP reached the a priori defined threshold of statistical significance (p<5x10-8). We detected 50 SNPs in 9 genomic regions with suggestive p-values (p<1x10-5). Two of them, rs6870564 (p-value=3.28 X 10-6) and rs7702121 (p-value=5.09 X 10-6), were located close to biologic candidate genes, MYO and MGAT1, and one SNP in a genomic region in chromosome 6, rs7762018 (p-value=4.59 X 10-6) has been previously related to Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (IDDM8). I conclude that 1) there are unlikely to be common SNPs with large effects on the adverse metabolic effects to hydrochlorothiazide treatment and 2) larger sample sizes are needed for pharmacogenetic studies of inter-individual variation in response to commonly prescribed medication.