Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 9, 2026
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
The benefit of using bladder sub-volume equivalent uniform dose constraints in prostate intensity-modulated
Jian Zhu1, Antoine Simon2, Pascal Haigron2
1Laboratory of Image Science and Technology, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu; Department of Radiation Oncology, Shandong Cancer Hospital & Institute, Jinan; Centre de Recherche en Information Biomédicale Sino-français, Nanjing, People's Republic of China.
Background:
To assess the benefits of bladder wall sub-volume equivalent uniform dose (EUD) constraints in prostate cancer intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) planning.
Methods:
Two IMRT plans, with and without EUD constraints on the bladder wall, were generated using beams that deliver 80 Gy to the prostate and 46 Gy to the seminal vesicles and were compared in 53 prostate cancer patients. The bladder wall was defined as the volume between the external manually delineated wall and a contraction of 7 mm apart from it. The bladder wall was then separated into two parts: the internal-bladder wall (bla-in) represented by the portion of the bladder wall that intersected with the planning target volume (PTV) plus 5 mm extension; the external-bladder wall (bla-ex) represented by the remaining part of the bladder wall. In the IMRT plan with EUD constraints, the values of "a" parameter for the EUD models were 10.0 for bla-in and 2.3 for bla-ex. The plans with and without EUD constraints were compared in terms of dose-volume histograms, 5-year bladder and rectum normal tissue complication probability values, as well as tumor control probability (TCP) values.
Results:
The use of bladder sub-volume EUD constraints decreased both the doses to the bladder wall (V70: 22.76% vs 19.65%, Dmean: 39.82 Gy vs 35.45 Gy) and the 5-year bladder complication probabilities (≥LENT/SOMA Grade 2: 20.35% vs 17.96%; bladder bleeding: 10.63% vs 8.64%). The doses to the rectum wall and the rectum complication probabilities were also slightly decreased by the EUD constraints compared to physical constraints only. The minimal dose and the V76Gy of PTVprostate were, however, slightly decreased by EUD optimization, nevertheless without significant difference in TCP values between the two plans, and the PTV parameters finally respected the Groupe d'Etude des Tumeurs Uro-Génitales recommendations.
Conclusion:
Separating the bladder wall into two parts with appropriate EUD optimization may reduce bladder toxicity in prostate IMRT. Combining biological constraints with physical constraints in the organs at risk at the inverse planning step of IMRT may improve the dose distribution.
