Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 23, 2025
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Ultrahypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer Including Seminal Vesicles in the Target Volume: A
Elinore Wieslander1,2, Vilberg Jóhannesson1,3, Per Nilsson1,2
1Radiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Purpose:
Ultrahypofractionated (UHF) radiation therapy (RT) has become a treatment alternative for patients with localized prostate cancer. In more advanced cases, seminal vesicles (SVs) are routinely included in the target volume. The Scandinavian HYPO-RT-PC trial, which compared 42.7 Gy in 7 fractions (fr) to conventional fractionation (CF), did not include SVs in the clinical target volume. The primary objective of the present work was to implement a ultrahypofractionated-simultaneous integrated boost (UHF-SIB) for prostate cancer RT, incorporating SVs into the target volume based on this fractionation schedule. A secondary objective was to analyze the unintentional dose coverage of SVs from state-of-the-art volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments to the prostate gland only.
Methods And Materials:
Two different equieffective UHF-SIB treatment schedules to SVs were derived based on the CF clinical schedule (50.0 Gy/25 fr to elective SVs and 70.0 Gy/35 fr to verified SV-invasion (SVI)) using the linear quadric model with α/β = 2 Gy and 3 Gy. The dose to the prostate was 42.7 Gy/7 fr in both schedules, with 31.2 Gy/37.8 Gy (α/β = 2 Gy) and 32.7 Gy/40.1 Gy (α/β = 3 Gy) to elective SV/verified SVI. Volumetric modulated arc therapy plans to the proximal 10 mm and 20 mm were optimized, and dose-volume metrics for target volumes and organs at risk were evaluated.
Results:
Dose metrics were overall lower for UHF-SIB compared with CF. QUANTEC-based volume criteria were 2% to 7% lower for the rectum and 2% to 4% lower for the bladder in the UHF-SIB. The D98% to elective SV was 7 to 12 Gy3 lower with UHF-SIB, and the corresponding data for verified SVI were approximately 2 to 3 Gy3. The SV(10 mm) V90%/(29.5 Gy) for prostate-only treatments (42.7 Gy) were as follows: median (IQR), 99% (87-100) and 78% (58-99) for the clinical target volume and planning target volume, respectively.
Conclusions:
UHF RT based on the HYPO-RT-PC fractionation schedule, with a SIB technique, to the prostate and the base of the SV can be planned with lower doses (EQD2) to organs at risk, compared with CF. The unintentional dose to the proximal parts of SVs in prostate-only treatment can be substantial.
