Brachytherapy · 2019
Dose to the dominant intraprostatic lesion using HDR vs. LDR monotherapy: A Phase II randomized trial.
Клиническое исследование II фазыСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Tissaverasinghe Steven, Crook Juanita, Bachand Francois, Batchelar Deidre, Hilts Michelle, Araujo Cynthia, Anderson Danielle, Bainbridge Terry, Farnquist Brenda
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To present the dosimetric results of a Phase II randomized trial comparing dose escalation to the MRI-defined dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) using either low-dose-rate (LDR) or high-dose-rate (HDR) prostate brachytherapy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients receiving prostate brachytherapy as monotherapy were randomized to LDR or HDR brachytherapy. Prostate and DILs were contoured on preoperative multiparametric MRI. These images were registered with transrectal ultrasound for treatment planning. LDR brachytherapy was preplanned using I-125 seeds. HDR brachytherapy used intraoperative transrectal ultrasound-based planning to deliver 27 Gy/2 fractions in separate implants. DIL location was classified as peripheral, central, or anterior. A student t-test compared DIL D90 between modalities and DIL locations.
RESULTS: Of 60 patients, 31 underwent LDR and 29 HDR brachytherapy. Up to three DILs were identified per patient (100 total) with 74 peripheral, six central, and 20 anterior DILs. Mean DIL volume was 1.9 cc (SD: 1.7 cc) for LDR and 1.6 cc (SD 1.3 cc) for HDR (p = 0.279). Mean DIL D90 was 151% (SD 30%) for LDR and 132% (SD 13%) for HDR. For LDR, mean peripheral DIL D90 was 159% (SD 27%) and central or anterior 127% (SD 13%). HDR peripheral DILs received 137% (SD 12%) and central or anterior 119% (SD 7%). DIL D90 for peripheral lesions was higher than anterior and central (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: DIL location affects dose escalation, particularly because of urethral proximity, such as for anterior and central DILs. HDR brachytherapy may dose escalate better when target DIL is close to critical organs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients receiving prostate brachytherapy as monotherapy were randomized to LDR or HDR brachytherapy. Prostate and DILs were contoured on preoperative multiparametric MRI. These images were registered with transrectal ultrasound for treatment planning. LDR brachytherapy was preplanned using I-125 seeds. HDR brachytherapy used intraoperative transrectal ultrasound-based planning to deliver 27 Gy/2 fractions in separate implants. DIL location was classified as peripheral, central, or anterior. A student t-test compared DIL D90 between modalities and DIL locations.
RESULTS: Of 60 patients, 31 underwent LDR and 29 HDR brachytherapy. Up to three DILs were identified per patient (100 total) with 74 peripheral, six central, and 20 anterior DILs. Mean DIL volume was 1.9 cc (SD: 1.7 cc) for LDR and 1.6 cc (SD 1.3 cc) for HDR (p = 0.279). Mean DIL D90 was 151% (SD 30%) for LDR and 132% (SD 13%) for HDR. For LDR, mean peripheral DIL D90 was 159% (SD 27%) and central or anterior 127% (SD 13%). HDR peripheral DILs received 137% (SD 12%) and central or anterior 119% (SD 7%). DIL D90 for peripheral lesions was higher than anterior and central (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: DIL location affects dose escalation, particularly because of urethral proximity, such as for anterior and central DILs. HDR brachytherapy may dose escalate better when target DIL is close to critical organs.