Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 5, 2025
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
The Role of Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer in the Setting of Hip Prosthesis
Maryam Moteabbed1, Mislav Bobić1,2, Harald Paganetti1
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
Purpose:
Given that the current standard of proton therapy (PT) for prostate cancer is through bilateral beams, this modality is typically avoided when it comes to treatment of patients with hip prosthesis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether novel PT methods, i.e., anterior proton beams and proton arc therapy (PArc), could be feasible options to treat this patient subpopulation. We evaluate PT methods in the context of dosimetry and robustness and compare with standard of practice volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to explore any potential benefits.
Methods:
Two PT and one VMAT treatment plans were retrospectively created for 10 patients who participated in a clinical trial with a weekly repeat CT (rCT) imaging component. All plans were robustly optimized and featured: (1) combination anterior oblique and lateral proton beams (AoL), (2) PArc, and (3) VMAT. All patients had hydrogel spacers in place, which enabled safe application of anterior proton beams. The planned dose was 70 Gy (RBE) to the entire prostate gland and 50 Gy (RBE) to the proximal seminal vesicles in 28 fractions. Along with plan dose-volume metrics, robustness to setup and interfractional variations were evaluated using the weekly rCT images. The linear energy transfer (LET)-weighted dose was evaluated for PArc plans to ensure urethra sparing given the typical high-LET region at the end of range.
Results:
Both PT methods were dosimetrically feasible and provided reduction of some key OAR metrics compared to VMAT except for penile bulb, while providing equally good target coverage. Significant differences in median rectum V35 (22-25%), penile bulb Dmean (5 Gy), rectum V61 (2%), right femoral head Dmean (5 Gy), and bladder V39 (4%) were found between PT and VMAT. All plans were equally robust to variations. LET-weighted dose in urethra was equivalent to the physical dose for PArc plans and hence no added urethral toxicity was expected.
Conclusions:
PT for treatment of prostate cancer patients with hip prosthesis is feasible and equivalent or potentially superior to VMAT in quality in some cases. The choice of radiotherapy regimen can be personalized based on patient characteristics to achieve the best treatment outcome.
