Back to Search Start Over

Characterization of an Iodinated Rectal Spacer for Prostate Photon and Proton Radiation Therapy.

Authors :
Kamran, Sophia C.
McClatchy III, David M.
Pursley, Jennifer
Trofimov, Alexei V.
Remillard, Kyla
Saraf, Anurag
Ghosh, Anushka
Thabet, Ashraf
Sutphin, Patrick
Miyamoto, David T.
Efstathiou, Jason A.
Source :
Practical Radiation Oncology; Mar2022, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p135-144, 10p
Publication Year :
2022

Abstract

Conventional rectal spacers (nonI-SPs) are low-contrast on computed tomography (CT), often necessitating magnetic resonance imaging for accurate delineation. A new formulation of spacers (I-SPs) incorporates iodine to improve radiopacity and CT visualization. We characterized placement, stability, and plan quality of I-SPs compared to nonI-SPs. Patients with intact prostate cancer (n = 50) treated with I-SPs and photons were compared to randomly selected patients (n = 50) with nonI-SPs (photon or proton therapy). The I-SP was contoured on the planning CT and cone beam CTs at 3 timepoints: first, middle, and final treatment (n = 200 scans). I-SPs Hounsfield units (HU), volume, surface area (SA), centroid position relative to prostate centroid, and distance between prostate/rectum centroids were compared on the planning CTs between each cohort. I-SP changes were evaluated on cone beam CTs over courses of treatment. Dosimetric evaluations of plan quality and robustness were performed. I-SP was tested in a phantom to characterize its relative linear stopping power for protons. I-SPs yielded a distinct visible contrast on planning CTs compared to nonI-SPs (HU 138 vs 12, P <.001), allowing delineation on CT alone. The delineated volume and SA of I-SPs were smaller than nonI-SPs (volume 8.9 vs 10.6 mL, P <.001; SA 28 vs 35 cm<superscript>2</superscript>, P <.001), yet relative spacer position and prostate-rectal separation were similar (P =.79). No significant change in HU, volume, SA, or relative position of the I-SPs hydrogel occurred over courses of treatment (all P >.1). Dosimetric analysis concluded there were no significant changes in plan quality or robustness for I-SPs compared to nonI-SPs. The I-SP relative linear stopping power was 1.018, necessitating HU override for proton planning. I-SPs provide a manifest CT contrast, allowing for delineation on planning CT alone with no magnetic resonance imaging necessary. I-SPs radiopacity, size, and relative position remained stable over courses of treatment from 28 to 44 fractions. No changes in plan quality or robustness were seen comparing I-SPs and nonI-SPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
18798500
Volume :
12
Issue :
2
Database :
Supplemental Index
Journal :
Practical Radiation Oncology
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
155526649
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2021.09.009