Search

Purpose: Compared to urban populations, rural populations rank poorly on numerous health indicators, including cancer outcomes. We examined the relationship of rural residence with stage and treatment among patients with prostate cancer, the second most common malignancy in men., Materials and Methods: Using the Pennsylvania Cancer Registry we identified all men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2009 and 2015. Patients were classified as residing in a rural area, a large town or an urban area using the Rural-Urban Commuting Area classification. Our primary outcomes included indicators of prostate cancer treatment and treatment types but we also examined disease stage and mortality. We used the chi-square tests to assess differences between groups and estimated multivariable logistic regression models to assess the association between rural residence and treatment., Results: We identified 51,024 men diagnosed with localized or metastatic prostate cancer between 2009 and 2015. The overall incidence of prostate cancer decreased during the study period from 416 to 304/100,000 men while the incidence of metastatic disease increased from 336 to 538/100,000. Rural residents were less likely to undergo treatment than urban residents even when stratified by low, intermediate and high risk disease (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.91; aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.89; and aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.89, respectively). Rural status did not affect the receipt of radiation therapy compared to other treatment types., Conclusions: Prostate cancer treatment differs between urban and rural residents. Rural residents are less likely to receive treatment even when stratified by disease risk.

To investigate feasible treatment planning parameters, we aimed to evaluate the dosimetric and radiobiological impact of the dose calculation algorithm and grid size in the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan for prostate cancer. Twenty patients were selected, and the treatment plans were initially generated with anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and recalculated with Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm. Various dose grids were used for AXB (1, 2, and 3 mm) and AAA (1, 3, and 5 mm) plan. Dosimetric parameters such as homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI), and radiobiological parameters such as tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were calculated. Significant differences were observed in the planning target volume (PTV) coverage between both algorithms, and the V95%, HI, and CI of AAA were significantly affected by grid (p < 0.01). On 1 mm grid, the mean rectal dose difference between both algorithms was 2.87% of the prescription dose (p < 0.01), which was the highest among the critical organs. The TCP and NTCP of the AAA were higher than those of AXB (p < 0.01). Compared to AXB with 1 mm grid, the 2 mm grid showed comparable dose calculation accuracy with short calculation time. This study found that the PTV and rectum show significant differences according to dose calculation algorithm and grid. Considering the dose calculation performance for heterogeneous area, we recommend AXB with 2 mm grid for improving treatment efficiency of prostate VMAT., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the feasibility of using a flattening filter-free (FFF) beam with an endorectal balloon for stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) of clinically localized prostate cancer. We assessed plans of SABR with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) that used a flattening filter (FF) beam and an FFF beam and compared the verification results of dosimetric quality assurance for all pretreatment plans. A total of 20 patients with prostate cancer were enrolled in the study. SABR plans using VMAT with two full arcs were optimized in the Eclipse treatment planning system. All plans prescribed 42.7 Gy in 7 fractions of 6.1 Gy each. Four SABR plans were computed for each patient: two with FF beams and two with FFF beams of 6 and 10 MV. For all plans, the cumulative dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for the target volumes and organs at risk (OARs) were recorded and compared. Pretreatment quality assurance (QA) was performed using the I'mRT MatriXX system and radiochromic EBT3 film to verify treatment delivery, and gamma analysis was used to quantify the agreement between calculations and measurements. In addition, total monitor units (MUs) and delivery time were investigated as technical parameters of delivery. All four plans achieved adequate dose conformity to the target volumes and had comparable dosimetric data. The DVHs of all four plans for each patient were very similar. All plans were highly conformal with CI < 1.05 and CN > 0.90, and the doses were homogeneous (HI = 0.08-0.15). Sparing for the bladder and rectum was slightly better with the 10 MV FF and FFF plans than with the 6 MV FF and FFF plans, but the difference was negligible. However, there was no significant difference in sparing for the other OARs. The mean agreement with the 3%/3 mm criterion was higher than 97% for verifying all plans. For the 2%/2 mm criterion, the corresponding agreement values were more than 90%, which showed that the plans were acceptable. The mean MUs and delivery time used were 1701 ± 101 and 3.02 ± 0.17 min for 6 MV FF, 1870 ± 116 and 2.01 ± 0.01 min for 6 MV FFF, 1471 ± 86 and 2.68 ± 0.14 min for 10 MV FF, and 1619 ± 101 and 2.00 ± 0.00 min for 10MV FFF, respectively. In the current study, the dose distributions of the prostate SABR plans using 6 and 10 MV FFF beams were similar to those using 6 and 10 MV FF beams. However, this study confirmed that SABR treatment using an FFF beam had an advantage with respect to delivery time. In addition, all pretreatment plans were verified as acceptable and their results were comparable. Therefore, the results of this study suggest that the use of an FFF beam for prostate SABR is a feasible and efficient technique, if carefully applied.

Purpose: To compare the impact of elective whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) versus prostate bed-only radiotherapy (PBRT) on biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) in prostate cancer patients treated with salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy (RP)., Patients and Methods: In our database, 163 lymph node-negative prostate cancer patients who had undergone salvage radiotherapy (SRT) for biochemical relapse after RP between September 2004 and April 2012 were identified. PBRT was administered to 134 patients (the PBRT group), while the remaining 29 patients (the WPRT group) received WPRT., Results: Median follow-up was 57 months (range 18-122 months). In the propensity score-matched cohort, the 4-year bRFS of the WPRT group was significantly higher compared to the PBRT group (63.1 vs. 43.4%, p = 0.034). Subgroup analysis showed that the bRFS of patients who had two or more risk factors (seminal vesicle invasion, Roach score for lymph node invasion ≥ 45%, and number of harvested lymph nodes ≤ 5) and were treated with WPRT was significantly improved compared to those who received PBRT (hazard ratio, HR 0.33; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.13-0.83; p = 0.018)., Conclusion: Elective WPRT for SRT may improve bRFS in patients with unfavorable risk factors. These results need to be confirmed by a prospective randomized trial.

Background: To compare the dosimetric effects of Acuros XB (AXB) and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) on volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning for postoperative prostate cancer patients irradiated using an endorectal balloon (ERB)., Methods: We measured central axis doses with film in a phantom containing an air cavity, and compared measurements with calculations of the AAA and AXB. For clinical study, 10 patients who had undergone whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) followed by prostatic bed-only radiotherapy (PBRT) using VMAT were enrolled. An ERB was used for PBRT but not for WPRT. To compare dosimetric parameters, the cumulative dose-volume histograms, mean, maximum, and minimum doses were measured for the planning target volume. Homogeneity of plans were confirmed using V95%, V107% (VX%, percentage volumes receiving at least X% of prescribed doses) and conformity indices (homogeneity index [HI], conformity index [CI], and conformation number [CN]). We compared volumes of the organ-at-risk receiving 10% to 100% (10-tier at 10% interval) of prescribed doses (V10% - V100%)., Results: In the phantom study, the AAA showed larger disagreement with the measurements, and overestimated the dose in the air cavity, comparing with the AXB. For WPRT planning, the AAA predicted a lower maximum dose and V107% than the AXB. For PBRT planning, the AAA estimated a higher minimum dose, lower maximum dose, and smaller V107%, and larger V95% than the AXB. Regarding the conformity indices, the AAA was estimated to be more homogenous than the AXB for PBRT planning (HI, 0.088 vs. 0.120, p = 0.005; CI, 1.052 vs. 1.038, p = 0.022; and CN, 0.920 vs. 0.900, p = 0.007) but not for WPRT planning. Among V10% to V100% of the rectum, the PBRT exhibited significant discrepancies in V30%, V40%, V70%, V80%, and V90%; while the WPRT did in V20% and V30%., Conclusions: The phantom study demonstrated that the AXB calculates more accurately in the air cavity than the AAA. In the clinical setting, the AXB exhibited different dosimetric distributions in the VMAT plans for PBRT containing an ERB. The AXB should be considered for prostate cancer patients irradiated with an ERB for better applying of heterogeneous condition.