Search

Purpose: Rapid pain relief for patients with bone metastases can be a challenge due to the lengthy and complex radiation therapy workflow. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the time (in days) between initial radiation oncology consultation and start of palliative radiation treatment after implementing an alternative virtual simulation palliative workflow., Methods and Materials: Patients meeting strict criteria were selected for virtual simulation, which included only those with painful bone metastases who were recommended palliative radiation therapy using standard anterior-posterior/posterior-anterior or opposed lateral fields. A recent (within 30 days) diagnostic computed tomography (CT) scan clearly visualizing the target volume was required for treatment planning. For comparison, a reference group of 40 consecutive patients with bone metastases who underwent in-person CT simulation before virtual simulation implementation was reviewed., Results: Forty-five patients were treated for painful bone metastases as part of the virtual simulation program from May 2021 to October 2022. Regarding travel distance, 23 patients lived locally (<50 miles from the treatment center) and 22 patients were distant (≥50 miles from the treatment center). Average time from consultation to treatment for all patients undergoing virtual simulation was 3.7 days, compared with 7.5 days for patients undergoing in-person CT simulation (3.8 days sooner, on average; P ≤ .001). Before full implementation of the virtual simulation program, 5 eligible patients participated in a virtual simulation pilot from April 2021 to May 2021, in which each patient was contoured and planned on both a pre-existing diagnostic CT scan and a standard CT simulation scan. For virtual simulation-based plans, the average V90, V95, and V99 were 99.99%, 99.87%, and 96.70%. No significant planning target volume (PTV) coverage difference was found on subsequent in-person CT simulation scans., Conclusions: The virtual simulation program decreased the time from consultation to start of treatment by more than 50% for patients recommended palliative radiation therapy for painful bone metastases. This benefit was most significant for outpatients traveling ≥50 miles for treatment. Virtual simulation-based planning can be considered for patients anxious to proceed with radiation therapy quickly or in underserved settings with limited transportation options to regional treatment centers., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Purpose: To determine the target coverage for proton therapy with and without image guidance and daily prebeam reorientation., Methods and Materials: A total of 207 prostate positions were analyzed for 9 prostate cancer patients treated using our low-risk prostate proton therapy protocol (University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute 001). The planning target volume was defined as the prostate plus a 5-mm axial and 8-mm superoinferior extension. The prostate was repositioned using 5- and 10-mm shifts (anteriorly, inferiorly, posteriorly, and superiorly) and for Points A-D using a combination of 10-mm multidimensional movements (anteriorly or inferiorly; posteriorly or superiorly; and left or right). The beams were then realigned using the new prostate position. The prescription dose was 78 Gray equivalent (GE) to 95% of the planning target volume., Results: For small movements in the anterior, inferior, and posterior directions within the planning target volume (< or =5 mm), treatment realignment demonstrated small, but significant, improvements in the clinical target volume (CTV) coverage to the prescribed dose (78 GE). The anterior and posterior shifts also significantly increased the minimal CTV dose (Delta +1.59 GE). For prostate 10-mm movements in the inferior, posterior, and superior directions, the beam realignment produced larger and significant improvements for both the CTV V(78) (Delta +6.4%) and the CTV minimal dose (Delta +8.22 GE). For the compounded 10-mm multidimensional shifts, realignment significantly improved the CTV V(78) (Delta +11.8%) and CTV minimal dose (Delta +23.6 GE). After realignment, the CTV minimal dose was >76.6 GE (>98%) for all points (A-D)., Conclusion: Proton beam realignment after target shift will enhance CTV coverage for different prostate positions.

Purpose: To determine the impact of prostate motion on dose coverage in proton therapy., Methods and Materials: A total of 120 prostate positions were analyzed on 10 treatment plans for 10 prostate patients treated using our low-risk proton therapy prostate protocol (University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute 001). Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging T(2)-weighted turbo spin-echo scans were registered for all cases. The planning target volume included the prostate with a 5-mm axial and 8-mm superoinferior expansion. The prostate was repositioned using 5- and 10-mm one-dimensional vectors and 10-mm multidimensional vectors (Points A-D). The beam was realigned for the 5- and 10-mm displacements. The prescription dose was 78 Gy equivalent (GE)., Results: The mean percentage of rectum receiving 70 Gy (V(70)) was 7.9%, the bladder V(70) was 14.0%, and the femoral head/neck V(50) was 0.1%, and the mean pelvic dose was 4.6 GE. The percentage of prostate receiving 78 Gy (V(78)) with the 5-mm movements changed by -0.2% (range, 0.006-0.5%, p > 0.7). However, the prostate V(78) after a 10-mm displacement changed significantly (p < 0.003) with different movements: 3.4% (superior), -5.6% (inferior), and -10.2% (posterior). The corresponding minimal doses were also reduced: 4.5 GE, -4.7 GE, and -11.7 GE (p < or = 0.003). For displacement points A-D, the clinical target volume V(78) coverage had a large and significant reduction of 17.4% (range, 13.5-17.4%, p < 0.001) in V(78) coverage of the clinical target volume. The minimal prostate dose was reduced 33% (25.8 GE), on average, for Points A-D. The prostate minimal dose improved from 69.3 GE to 78.2 GE (p < 0.001) with realignment for 10-mm movements., Conclusion: The good dose coverage and low normal doses achieved for the initial plan was maintained with movements of < or = 5 mm. Beam realignment improved coverage for 10-mm displacements.

Purpose: The contrast in dose distribution between proton radiotherapy (RT) and intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) is unclear, particularly in regard to critical structures such as the rectum and bladder., Methods and Materials: Between August and November 2006, the first 10 consecutive patients treated in our Phase II low-risk prostate proton protocol (University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute protocol 0001) were reviewed. The double-scatter proton beam plans used in treatment were analyzed for various dosimetric endpoints. For all plans, each beam dose distribution, angle, smearing, and aperture margin were optimized. IMRT plans were created for all patients and simultaneously analyzed. The IMRT plans were optimized through multiple volume objectives, beam weighting, and individual leaf movement. The patients were treated to 78 Gray-equivalents (GE) in 2-GE fractions with a biologically equivalent dose of 1.1., Results: All rectal and rectal wall volumes treated to 10-80 GE (percentage of volume receiving 10-80 GE [V(10)-V(80)]) were significantly lower with proton therapy (p < 0.05). The rectal V(50) was reduced from 31.3% +/- 4.1% with IMRT to 14.6% +/- 3.0% with proton therapy for a relative improvement of 53.4% and an absolute benefit of 16.7% (p < 0.001). The mean rectal dose decreased 59% with proton therapy (p < 0.001). For the bladder and bladder wall, proton therapy produced significantly smaller volumes treated to doses of 10-35 GE (p < 0.05) with a nonsignificant advantage demonstrated for the volume receiving < or =60 GE. The bladder V(30) was reduced with proton therapy for a relative improvement of 35.3% and an absolute benefit of 15.1% (p = 0.02). The mean bladder dose decreased 35% with proton therapy (p = 0.002)., Conclusion: Compared with IMRT, proton therapy reduced the dose to the dose-limiting normal structures while maintaining excellent planning target volume coverage.

Purpose: To describe dose-volume values with the use of water alone vs. a rectal balloon (RB) for the treatment of prostate cancer with proton therapy., Materials and Methods: We analyzed 30 proton plans for 15 patients who underwent CT and MRI scans with an RB or water alone. Simulation was performed with a modified MRI endorectal coil and an RB with 100 mL of water or water alone. Doses of 78-82 gray equivalents were prescribed to the planning target volume. The two groups were compared for three structures: rectum, rectal wall (RW), and rectal wall 7 cm (RW7) at the level of the planning target volume., Results: Rectum and RW volumes radiated to low, intermediate, and high doses were small: rectum V10, 33.7%; V50, 17.3%; and V70, 10.2%; RW V10, 32.4%; V50, 20.4%; and V70, 14.6%. The RB effectively increased the rectal volume for all cases (139.8 +/- 44.9 mL vs. 217.7 +/- 32.2 mL (p < 0.001). The RB also decreased the volume of the rectum radiated to doses V10-V65 (p < or = 0.05); RW for V10-V50; and RW7 for V10-V35. An absolute rectum V50 improvement >5% was seen for the RB in 5 of 15 cases, for a benefit of 9.2% +/- 2.3% compared with 2.4% +/- 1.3% for the remaining 10 cases (p < 0.001). Similar benefit was seen for the rectal wall. No benefit was seen for doses > or =70 gray equivalents for the rectum, RW, or RW7. No benefit of < or =1% was seen with an RB in 46% for the rectum V70 and in 40% for the rectal wall V70., Conclusions: Rectum and rectal wall doses with proton radiation were low whether using water or an RB. Selected patients will have a small but significant advantage with an RB; however, water alone was well tolerated and will be an alternative for most patients.