Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 11, 2026
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
A comparative dosimetric analysis of virtual stereotactic body radiotherapy to high-dose-rate monotherapy for
Daniel E Spratt1, Lawrence M Scala, Michael Folkert
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Purpose:
Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is being used with increasing frequency as definitive treatment of early stage prostate cancer. Much of the justification for its adoption was derived from earlier clinical results using high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy. We determine whether HDR's dosimetry can be achieved by virtual SBRT.
Methods And Materials:
Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer on a prospective trial evaluating the efficacy of HDR monotherapy treated to dose of 9.5Gy×4 fractions were used for this study. A total of 5 patients were used in this analysis. Virtual SBRT plans were developed to reproduce the planning target volume (PTV) HDR dose distributions. Both normal tissue- and PTV-prioritized plans were generated.
Results:
From the normal tissue-prioritized plan, HDR and virtual SBRT achieved similar PTV V100 (93.8% vs. 93.1%, p=0.20) and V150 (40.3% vs. 42.9%, p=0.69) coverage. However, the PTV V200 was not attainable with SBRT (15.2% vs. 0.0%, p<0.001). The rectal Dmax was significantly lower with HDR (94.2% vs. 99.42%, p=0.05). The rectal D2 cc was also lower (60.8% vs. 71.1%, p=0.07). Difference in D1 cc urethral dose was not significantly different (87.7% vs. 75.2%, p=0.33). Comparing the PTV-prioritized plans, the rectal Dmax (94.2% vs. 111.1%, p=0.05) and mean dose (27.1% vs. 33.3%, p=0.03) were significantly higher using SBRT, and the rectal D2 cc was higher using SBRT (60.8% vs. 81.8%, p=0.07).
Conclusions:
HDR achieves significantly higher intraprostatic doses while achieving a lower maximum rectal dose compared with our virtual SBRT treatment planning. Future studies should compare clinical outcomes and toxicity between these modalities.
