Current Urology Reports

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 172–179 | Cite as

Technological Advances in Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Article

Abstract

Radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer has made huge strides over the past two decades. The addition of image guidance has allowed radiation oncologists to ensure accurate delivery of increasingly precise radiation treatment plans using newer conformal therapy methods such as three-dimensional conformal RT, intensity-modulated RT, and proton beam RT. Regardless of the specific treatment technique, patients can depend on the treatment to target the moving prostate effectively while significantly sparing adjacent tissues, thereby reducing the morbidity of having to undergo prostate cancer therapy. This review summarizes the recent technical advances made in radiation dose delivery, including target volume definition, treatment planning, treatment delivery methods, and positional verification methods during RT.

Keywords

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy IMRT Image-guided radiation therapy IGRT Hypofractionated radiotherapy 

Notes

Disclosure

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Zhang J, Hricak H, Shukla-Dave A, et al.: Clinical stage T1c prostate cancer: evaluation with endorectal MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2009, 253:425–434.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bloch BN, Furman-Haran E, Helbich TH, et al.: Prostate cancer: accurate determination of extracapsular extension with high-spatial-resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced and T2-weighted MR imaging–initial results. Radiology 2007, 245:176–185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim Y, Hsu IC, Pouliot J, et al.: Expandable and rigid endorectal coils for prostate MRI: impact on prostate distortion and rigid image registration. Med Phys 2005, 32:3569–3578.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, van Lin EN, et al.: Changes in prostate shape and volume and their implications for radiotherapy after introduction of endorectal balloon as determined by MRI at 3T. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 73:1446–1453.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Augustin H, Fritz GA, Ehammer T, et al.: Accuracy of 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging for the staging of prostate cancer in comparison to the Partin tables. Acta Radiol 2009, 50:562–569.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bloch BN, Lenkinski RE, Rofsky NM: The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in prostate cancer imaging and staging at 1.5 and 3 Tesla: the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) approach. Cancer Biomark 2008, 4:251–262. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bloch BN, Rofsky NM, Baroni RH, et al.: 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate with combined pelvic phased-array and endorectal coils; Initial experience (1). Acad Radiol 2004, 11:863–867.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sosna J, Pedrosa I, Dewolf WC, et al.: MR imaging of the prostate at 3 Tesla: comparison of an external phased-array coil to imaging with an endorectal coil at 1.5 Tesla. Acad Radiol 2004, 11:857–862.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wu X, Dibiase SJ, Gullapalli R, Yu CX: Deformable image registration for the use of magnetic resonance spectroscopy in prostate treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004, 58:1577–1583.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schallenkamp JM, Herman MG, Kruse JJ, Pisansky TM: Prostate position relative to pelvic bony anatomy based on intraprostatic gold markers and electronic portal imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 63:800–811.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nederveen AJ, Dehnad H, van der Heide UA, et al.: Comparison of megavoltage position verification for prostate irradiation based on bony anatomy and implanted fiducials. Radiother Oncol 2003, 68:81–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boda-Heggemann J, Kohler F, Wertz H, et al.: Fiducial-based quantification of prostate tilt using cone beam computer tomography (CBCT). Radiother Oncol 2007, 85:247–250.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Herk M, Bruce A, Kroes AP, et al.: Quantification of organ motion during conformal radiotherapy of the prostate by three dimensional image registration. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995, 33:1311–1320.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chung PW, Haycocks T, Brown T, et al.: On-line aSi portal imaging of implanted fiducial markers for the reduction of interfraction error during conformal radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004, 60:329–334.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    van der Heide UA, Kotte AN, Dehnad H, et al.: Analysis of fiducial marker-based position verification in the external beam radiotherapy of patients with prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2007, 82:38–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kudchadker RJ, Lee AK, Yu ZH, et al.: Effectiveness of using fewer implanted fiducial markers for prostate target alignment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 74:1283–1289.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    •• Kupelian P, Willoughby T, Mahadevan A, et al.: Multi-institutional clinical experience with the Calypso System in localization and continuous, real-time monitoring of the prostate gland during external radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 67:1088–1098. This initial report of a multi-institutional trial demonstrates that the Calypso System is a clinically efficient and accurate localization method for positioning patients for prostate EBRT. The article offers the first data demonstrating that intrafraction motion occurs and can be corrected for with the Calypso System. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Langen KM, Willoughby TR, Meeks SL, et al.: Observations on real-time prostate gland motion using electromagnetic tracking. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008, 71:1084–1090.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Balter JM, Wright JN, Newell LJ, et al.: Accuracy of a wireless localization system for radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 61:933–937.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li JS, Pollack A, Horwitz E: Clinical experience on localization and real-time tracking of the prostate during external radiotherapy using Calypso 4D localization system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 69:S189.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li JS, Jin L, Pollack A, et al.: Gains from real-time tracking of prostate motion during external beam radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 75:1613–1620.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kupelian PA, Langen KM, Zeidan OA, et al.: Daily variations in delivered doses in patients treated with radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006, 66:876–882.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moseley DJ, White EA, Wiltshire KL, et al.: Comparison of localization performance with implanted fiducial markers and cone-beam computed tomography for on-line image-guided radiotherapy of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 67:942–953.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Court LE, Dong L: Automatic registration of the prostate for computed-tomography-guided radiotherapy. Med Phys 2003, 30:2750–2757.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kuriyama K, Onishi H, Sano N, et al.: A new irradiation unit constructed of self-moving gantry-CT and linac. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003, 55:428–435.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Owen R, Kron T, Foroudi F, et al.: Comparison of CT on rails with electronic portal imaging for positioning of prostate cancer patients with implanted fiducial markers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 74:906–912.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    de Crevoisier R, Tucker SL, Dong L, et al.: Increased risk of biochemical and local failure in patients with distended rectum on the planning CT for prostate cancer radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005, 62:965–973.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heemsbergen WD, Hoogeman MS, Witte MG, et al.: Increased risk of biochemical and clinical failure for prostate patients with a large rectum at radiotherapy planning: results from the Dutch trial of 68 GY versus 78 Gy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 67:1418–1424.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pawlowski JM, Yang ES, Malcolm AW, et al.: Reduction of dose delivered to organs at risk in prostate cancer patients via image-guided radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010, 76:924–934.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hammoud R, Patel SH, Pradhan D, et al.: Examining margin reduction and its impact on dose distribution for prostate cancer patients undergoing daily cone-beam computed tomography. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008, 71:265–273.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chung HT, Xia P, Chan LW, et al.: Does image-guided radiotherapy improve toxicity profile in whole pelvic-treated high-risk prostate cancer? Comparison between IG-IMRT and IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 73:53–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ling CC, Burman C, Chui CS, et al.: Conformal radiation treatment of prostate cancer using inversely-planned intensity-modulated photon beams produced with dynamic multileaf collimation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996, 35:721–730.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    De Meerleer GO, Vakaet LA, De Gersem WR, et al.: Radiotherapy of prostate cancer with or without intensity modulated beams: a planning comparison. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000, 47:639–648.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Happersett L, et al.: Clinical experience with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2000, 55:241–249.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zelefsky MJ, Fuks Z, Hunt M, et al.: High-dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer: early toxicity and biochemical outcome in 772 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002, 53:1111–1116.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Spirou SV, Chui CS: Generation of arbitrary intensity profiles by dynamic jaws or multileaf collimators. Med Phys 1994, 21:1031–1041.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Otto K: Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys 2008, 35:310–317.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Palma D, Vollans E, James K, et al.: Volumetric modulated arc therapy for delivery of prostate radiotherapy: comparison with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008, 72:996–1001.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kjaer-Kristoffersen F, Ohlhues L, Medin J, Korreman S: RapidArc volumetric modulated therapy planning for prostate cancer patients. Acta Oncol 2009, 48:227–232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yoo S, Wu QJ, Lee WR, Yin FF: Radiotherapy treatment plans with RapidArc for prostate cancer involving seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010, 76:935–942.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wang JZ, Guerrero M, Li XA: How low is the alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003, 55:194–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fowler J, Chappell R, Ritter M: Is alpha/beta for prostate tumors really low? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001, 50:1021–1031.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Liao Y, Joiner M, Huang Y, Burmeister J: Hypofractionation: what does it mean for prostate cancer treatment? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 76:260–268.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Leborgne F, Fowler J: Late outcomes following hypofractionated conformal radiotherapy vs. standard fractionation for localized prostate cancer: a nonrandomized contemporary comparison. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 74:1441–1446.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    •• Kupelian PA, Willoughby TR, Reddy CA, et al.: Hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (70 Gy at 2.5 Gy per fraction) for localized prostate cancer: Cleveland Clinic experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 68:1424–1430. This is one of the largest studies demonstrating clinical outcomes after high-dose hypofractionated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer that are comparable to outcomes achieved with standard radiation therapy regimens taking 2 weeks longer.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pollack A, Li T, Buyyounouski M, et al.: Hypofractionation for prostate cancer: interim results of a randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 75:S81–S82.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Livsey JE, Routledge J, Burns M, et al.: Scoring of treatment-related late effects in prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2002, 65:109–121.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pollack A, Hanlon AL, Horwitz EM, et al.: Dosimetry and preliminary acute toxicity in the first 100 men treated for prostate cancer on a randomized hypofractionation dose escalation trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006, 64:518–526.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Coote JH, Wylie JP, Cowan RA, et al.: Hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy for carcinoma of the prostate: analysis of toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 74:1121–1127.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    McCammon R, Rusthoven KE, Kavanagh B, et al.: Toxicity assessment of pelvic intensity-modulated radiotherapy with hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost to prostate for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 75:413–420.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Miralbell R, Molla M, Rouzaud M, et al.: Hypofractionated boost to the dominant tumor region with intensity modulated stereotactic radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a sequential dose escalation pilot study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009 Nov 10 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    King CR, Brooks JD, Gill H, et al.: Stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: interim results of a prospective phase II clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 73:1043–1048.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Madsen BL, Hsi RA, Pham HT, et al.: Stereotactic hypofractionated accurate radiotherapy of the prostate (SHARP), 33.5 Gy in five fractions for localized disease: first clinical trial results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 67:1099–1105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Katz AJ, Santoro M, Ashley R, et al.: Stereotactic body radiotherapy for organ-confined prostate cancer. BMC Urol 2010, 10:1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zietman AL, DeSilvio ML, Slater JD, et al.: Comparison of conventional-dose vs high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005, 294:1233–1239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kuban DA, Tucker SL, Dong L, et al.: Long-term results of the M. D. Anderson randomized dose-escalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008, 70:67–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Dearnaley DP, Sydes MR, Graham JD, et al.: Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2007, 8:475–487.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Shipley WU, Tepper JE, Prout GR Jr, et al.: Proton radiation as boost therapy for localized prostatic carcinoma. JAMA 1979, 241:1912–1915.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Slater JD, Yonemoto LT, Rossi CJ Jr, et al.: Conformal proton therapy for prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998, 42:299–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Chow JC, Grigorov GN: Monte Carlo simulations of dose near a nonradioactive gold seed. Med Phys Dec 2006, 33:4614–4621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Newhauser W, Fontenot J, Koch N, et al.: Monte Carlo simulations of the dosimetric impact of radiopaque fiducial markers for proton radiotherapy of the prostate. Phys Med Biol 2007, 52:2937–2952.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mendenhall NP, Li Z, Morris CG, et al.: Early GI and GU toxicity in three prospective trials of proton therapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 75:S11–S12.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Chera BS, Vargas C, Morris CG, et al.: Dosimetric study of pelvic proton radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 75:994–1002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Trofimov A, Nguyen PL, Coen JJ, et al.: Radiotherapy treatment of early-stage prostate cancer with IMRT and protons: a treatment planning comparison. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007, 69:444–453.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Soukup M, Sohn M, Yan D, et al.: Study of robustness of IMPT and IMRT for prostate cancer against organ movement. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 75:941–949.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Unkelbach J, Chan TC, Bortfeld T: Accounting for range uncertainties in the optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy. Phys Med Biol 2007, 52:2755–2773.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Zietman AL, Bae K, Rossi C, et al.: A phase III trial employing conformal photons with proton boost in early-stage prostate cancer: conventional dose (70.2 GyE) compared to high-dose irradiation (79.2 GyE): long-term updated analysis of Proton Radiation Oncology Group (PROG)/American College of Radiology (ACR) 95–09. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009, 75:S11.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    ZIetman AL, DeSilvio ML, Slater JD: A prospective phase I/II study using proton beam radiation to deliver 82 GyE to men with localized prostate cancer: preliminary results of ACR 0312. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008, 72:S77.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiation Medicine, KPV4Oregon Health & Science UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations