Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025
Dosimetric Comparison of VMAT Alone and VMAT with HDR Brachytherapy Boost Using Clinical and Biological Dose Models in Localized Prostate Cancer.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Guhlich Manuel, Knaus Olga, Strauss Arne, Fischer Laura Anna, Fischer Jann, Bendrich Stephanie, Donath Sandra, Dröge Leif Hendrik, Leu Martin, Rieken Stefan, Uhlig Annemarie, Schirmer Markus Anton, Hille Andrea
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Combining external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy (BT) enables biologically effective dose escalation in prostate cancer. However, comparative evaluation of such regimens using radiobiological modeling remains limited.
METHODS: Dose regimens based on clinical practice were analyzed using α/β values of 1.5 and 3 Gy for the prostate. Ten patients with available planning CT, pelvic MRI, and ultrasound-guided BT plans were retrospectively evaluated. Physical and biological dose distributions were recalculated for various EBRT and HDR-BT combinations. Biological effective dose (BED) values were determined for the prostate and organs at risk (OARs: anterior rectal wall, bladder base, urethra). Regimens yielding the highest ΔBED between prostate and OARs were considered most favorable.
RESULTS: All regimens met clinical dose constraints. The most favorable ΔBED profiles for bladder and rectum were observed with HDR-BT regimens (2 × 15 Gy) combined with either 23 × 2 Gy or 15 × 2.5 Gy EBRT, independent of the assumed α/β value. EBRT-only regimens achieved superior urethral sparing, while higher HDR doses led to increased urethral exposure.
CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the value of radiobiological modeling in differentiating and optimizing prostate cancer radiotherapy strategies. While the trade-offs between dose escalation and OAR sparing are clinically known, our biologically driven analysis provides a more quantitative foundation for selecting and tailoring combined EBRT/HDR-BT regimens in practice.
METHODS: Dose regimens based on clinical practice were analyzed using α/β values of 1.5 and 3 Gy for the prostate. Ten patients with available planning CT, pelvic MRI, and ultrasound-guided BT plans were retrospectively evaluated. Physical and biological dose distributions were recalculated for various EBRT and HDR-BT combinations. Biological effective dose (BED) values were determined for the prostate and organs at risk (OARs: anterior rectal wall, bladder base, urethra). Regimens yielding the highest ΔBED between prostate and OARs were considered most favorable.
RESULTS: All regimens met clinical dose constraints. The most favorable ΔBED profiles for bladder and rectum were observed with HDR-BT regimens (2 × 15 Gy) combined with either 23 × 2 Gy or 15 × 2.5 Gy EBRT, independent of the assumed α/β value. EBRT-only regimens achieved superior urethral sparing, while higher HDR doses led to increased urethral exposure.
CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the value of radiobiological modeling in differentiating and optimizing prostate cancer radiotherapy strategies. While the trade-offs between dose escalation and OAR sparing are clinically known, our biologically driven analysis provides a more quantitative foundation for selecting and tailoring combined EBRT/HDR-BT regimens in practice.