We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The RapidPlan is a radiotherapy planning tool that uses a dataset of approved plans to predict the dose distribution and automatically generates the dose–volume constraints for optimisation of the new plan. This study compares three strategies of model building for the treatment of prostate cancer with the 10-MV photon beam.
Methods:
Three models for prostate treatment were compared: Model 6X, Model10X and Model6Xrefined. Model6X is already used in our department and was trained on treatment plans based on the 6-MV photon beam. Model10X was trained on treatment plans based on the 10-MV photon beam and manually optimised by an experienced medical physicist. Finally, Model6Xrefined was trained on plans automatically created by the Model6X, but using the 10-MV photon beam. The three models were used to generate 25 new plans with the 10-MV photon beam.
Results:
Model10X generated plans with 2 Gy lower mean dose to bladder-PTV and rectum-PTV volumes and 8% lower V15Gy at bladder and rectum volumes, although the number of monitor units increased by 170 on average.
Conclusions:
The model trained on manually optimised plans generated plans with higher normal tissue sparing. However, model building is a time-consuming process, so a cost–benefit balance should be performed.
Prostate cancer is a common malignancy with rising incidence in Western countries such as the United Kingdom. In localised disease there are a variety of curative treatment modalities. Patients can be referred for surgery, or for a combination of hormonal therapies and radiotherapy (external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy). Each treatment option comes with side effects and in the case of radiotherapy one potential complication is bowel toxicity from radiation exposure. New technologies are being developed to try and mitigate the side effects and long term morbidity of this treatment, and to expand access to radiotherapy for patients who may previously have been excluded (i.e those with inflammatory bowel disease). Rectal Spacers are absorbable polyethylene glycol hydrogels injected into the perirectal space. These position the anterior rectal wall away from the prostate, subsequently minimising radiation dose to the rectum. Rectal Spacers have been introduced to National Healthcare Service (NHS) practice as part of the Innovation and Technology Payment (ITP) programme, however, their use is now under review.
Methodology and Results:
In this editorial we conduct a narrative review of some of the available evidence for Rectal Spacers, discuss their utilization within the NHS and the barriers to their wider use. We also explore preliminary dosimetry and quality of life data for use of Rectal Spacers in our centre where we have been part of the NHS ITP programme. Dosimetry data and Quality of life questionnaires were gathered from 22 treated patients and 11 matched controls. This indicated lower radiation doses to the prostate in those treated with Rectal Spacers.
Conclusion:
Rectal Spacers are an effective method to reduce radiation dose to the prostate in men treated for localised prostate cancer, however, their use remains under review in the NHS and there are a variety of barriers to upscaling their use.
The Varian Trilogy linear accelerator’s multi-leaf collimator moves on a carriage with a maximum leaf span of 15 cm. The traditional open and limited X-jaw technique of volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) yields a relatively compromised dose distribution within the planning target volume (PTV) region. This study aimed to determine whether the split X-jaw planning technique for VMAT improves plan quality regarding target dose coverage and organs at risk (OAR) sparing for PTVs that require a field size of more than 15 cm in the X-jaw direction in prostate cancer patients.
Method:
Computed tomography data sets from 15 patients with prostate cancer were enrolled in the study. Only the PTVs requiring a field size larger than 18 cm in the X-jaw position were considered, and a dose of 4500 cGy in 25 fractions was prescribed. For each case, three separate treatment plans were generated: open, limited and split X-jaw planning techniques with similar planning objectives
Results:
The split X-jaw technique resulted in statistically significant superior coverage of PTV when compared with the open (P < 0·0001) and limited methods (P < 0·001). The split technique delivered a lower dose to the OARs, although statistical significance could not be achieved. D2% (cGy) was lowest for the PTV in the split technique (4684·8 ± 18·16) and highest for the open technique (4710 ± 18·75), P < 0·001.
Conclusion:
The x-split jaw technique can replace the traditional open X-jaw practice of VMAT for PTVs requiring an X-jaw width of more than 15 cm in the Varian linear accelerator.
The aim of this paper is to investigate the effectiveness of physical exercise in managing fatigue during radiotherapy for prostate cancer patients. It explores the impact of various physical exercise regimes and their role in the prevention and management of fatigue to help inform best practice.
Method:
A literature search was conducted on OVID Medline database with a follow-up search on google scholar to include relevant references found during the initial search. Relevant systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) arising from this search were reviewed.
Findings:
There is evidence to support the notion that physical exercise in all its forms is an effective and safe intervention for fatigue management for prostate cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. Although widely studied, there is limited evidence of fatigue management strategies being clearly implemented into current radiotherapy practice for patients with prostate cancer. This information is essential to enable therapeutic radiographers to educate prostate cancer patients regarding effective exercise strategies and ensure that fatigue is managed optimally.
Conclusion:
Further research is required into the optimum physical exercise prescription to reduce radiation-induced fatigue, and standardised best practice guidelines should be developed nationally. A future move toward patient education into physical exercise and wellbeing should be a central component of the therapeutic radiographer role with specialist advice offered by review radiographers, empowering patients to become more physically active during treatment. Therapeutic radiographers have a unique opportunity to educate and promote physical exercise through a holistic wellbeing approach that aims to mitigate fatigue and improve quality of life.
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is indispensable for treatment planning in prostate radiotherapy (PR). Registration of MRI when compared to planning CT (pCT) is prone to uncertainty and this is rarely reported. In this study, we have compared three different types of registration methods to justify the direct use of MRI in PR.
Methods and materials:
Thirty patients treated for PR were retrospectively selected for this study and all underwent both CT and MRI. The MR scans were registered to the pCT using markers, focused and unfocussed methods and their registration are REGM, REGF, and REGNF, respectively. Registration comparison is done using the translational differences of three axes from the centre-of-mass values of gross tumour volume (GTV) generated using MRI.
Results:
The average difference in all three axes (x, y, z) is (1, 2·5, 2·3 mm) and (1, 3, 2·3 mm) for REGF-REFNF and REGF-REGM, respectively. MR-based GTV Volume is less in comparison to CT-based GTV and it is significantly different (p < 0·001).
Findings:
Image registration uncertainty is unavoidable for a regular CT–MR workflow. Additional planning target volume margin ranging from 2 to 3mm could be avoided if MR-only workflow is employed. This reduction in the margin is beneficial for small tumours treated with hypofractionation.
Dose distribution index (DDI) is a treatment planning evaluation parameter, reflecting dosimetric information of target coverage that can help to spare organs at risk (OARs) and remaining volume at risk (RVR). The index has been used to evaluate and compare prostate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using two different plan optimisers, namely photon optimisation (PO) and its predecessor, progressive resolution optimisation (PRO).
Materials and methods:
Twenty prostate VMAT treatment plans were created using the PO and PRO in this retrospective study. The 6 MV photon beams and a dose prescription of 78 Gy/39 fractions were used in plans with the same dose–volume criteria for plan optimisation. Dose–volume histograms (DVHs) of the planning target volume (PTV), as well as of OARs such as the rectum, bladder, left and right femur were determined in each plan. DDIs were calculated and compared for plans created by the PO and PRO based on DVHs of the PTV and all OARs.
Results:
The mean DDI values were 0·784 and 0·810 for prostate VMAT plans created by the PO and PRO, respectively. It was found that the DDI of the PRO plan was about 3·3% larger than the PO plan, which means that the dose distribution of the target coverage and sparing of OARs in the PRO plan was slightly better. Changing the weighting factors in different OARs would vary the DDI value by ∼7%. However, for plan comparison based on the same set of dose–volume criteria, the effect of weighting factor can be neglected because they were the same in the PO and PRO.
Conclusions:
Based on the very similar DDI values calculated from the PO and PRO plans, with the DDI value in the PRO plan slightly larger than that of the PO, it may be concluded that the PRO can create a prostate VMAT plan with slightly better dose distribution regarding the target coverage and sparing of OARs. Moreover, we found that the DDI is a simple and comprehensive dose–volume parameter for plan evaluation considering the target, OARs and RVR.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.