Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of Cyberknife and Tomotherapy in stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: As recent studies have suggested relatively low α/β for prostate cancer, the interest in hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer is rising. The aim of this study is to compare dosimetric results of Cyberknife (CK) with Tomotherapy (HT) in SBRT for localized prostate cancer. Furthermore, the radiobiologic consequences of heterogeneous dose distribution are also analyzed.

MATERIAL AND METHOD: A total of 12 cases of localized prostate cancer previously treated with SBRT were collected. Treatments had been planned and delivered using CK. Then HT plans were generated for comparison afterwards. The prescribed dose was 37.5Gy in 5 fractions. Dosimetric indices for target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) were compared. For radiobiological evaluation, generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were calculated and compared.

RESULT: Both CK and HT achieved target coverage while meeting OAR constraints adequately. HT plans resulted in better dose homogeneity (Homogeneity index: 1.04±0.01 vs. 1.21±0.01; p = 0.0022), target coverage (97.74±0.86% vs. 96.56±1.17%; p = 0.0076) and conformity (new vonformity index: 1.16±0.05 vs. 1.21±0.04; p = 0.0096). HT was shown to predict lower late rectal toxicity as compared to CK. Integral dose to body was also significantly lower in HT plans (46.59±6.44 Gy’L vs 57.05±11.68 Gy’L; p = 0.0029).

CONCLUSION: Based on physical dosimetry and radiobiologic considerations, HT may have advantages over CK, specifically in rectal sparing which could translate into clinical benefit of decreased late toxicities.

Keywords

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)prostate cancer equivalent uniform dose (EUD)normal tissue complication probability (NTCP)cyberknife tomotherapy

1 Introduction

Prostate cancer is a common malignancy in men. For localized stage, standard treatments include active surveillance, radical surgery and radiotherapy. For patient treated with radiotherapy, the option of brachytherapy (either low- or high-dose-rate), conventional external-beam radiotherapy, or altered-fractionation radiotherapy can be applied. With conventional radiotherapy, 1.8∼2Gy per fraction is typically delivered. Dose escalation was shown to improve biochemical disease free survival but have more grade 2+ toxicities. Recently, prostate cancer was reported to have relatively low α/β according to several studies [2 , 56]. The estimated α/β value was even suggested to be as low as 1.4Gy [2 , 41], thus indicating a greater sensitivity of prostate cancer cells to changes in fraction size. Such α/β value of prostate cancer is lower than the α/β of nearby organs at risk (OARs). Thus hypofractionated radiotherapy is considered to be an alternative way to escalate dose to tumor target without increasing toxicities. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), an extreme type of precision-oriented hypofractionated radiotherapy, has potential to achieve excellent tumor control with less radiation-related toxicity over conventional radiotherapy [14 , 52].

In previous studies of SBRT for prostate cancer, CyberKnifetrademark (CK, Accuray, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), an image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) system designed for radiosurgery, was the most commonly used modality. Its compact 6 MV linear accelerator mounted on a robotic arm can deliver beams from non-coplanar and non-isocentric angles. Orthogonal pair of x-ray cameras are used for Image guidance during the treatments. However, as the technology in radiation delivery advances, modalities other than CK were applied in SBRT for prostate cancer in recent years [1 , 50]. Helical Tomotherapytrademark (HT, TomoTherapy Inc, Madison, WI), a non-coplanar arc intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with 64-leaf 0.625 cm multileaf collimator (MLC) and IGRT system with mega-voltage computer tomography (MVCT) guidance which continuously delivered fan-beam in a spiral pattern by rotating gantry and moving couch at the same time, was shown to have greater dose homogeneity and lesser dose to the OARs over conventional IMRT dosimetrically [6 , 46].It is thus considered suitable to perform SBRT for prostate cancer.

The aim of this study is to compare the dosimetric properties of SBRT for prostate cancer with HT vs. CK, and evaluate the possible clinical impact by using radiobiological models to mitigate dose heterogeneity and analyze fractionation effect.

2 Material and method

2.1 Patient selection and treatment planning

The cases of 12 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer previously treated with CK for SBRT were selected for analysis. Golden fiducial markers were implanted into the prostate gland for real-time image tracking system of CK. Patients were setup in supine position with rectum emptied before each treatment fraction using rectal laxatives. CT images with slice thickness of 1.25 mm as well as diagnostic MRI were acquired for contouring and planning. The CK plans were generated for SBRT treatment using Accuray Multiplan 4.5 planning system with a cone size of 3 cm. The contours were exported as DICOM-RT files and then imported into the planning system of HT. Subsequently, a HT plan was made for each patient in Hi-Art^® 4.2.3 System using a pitch of 0.287, a modulation factor of 2, and a 2.5 cm field width afterwards. All the plans were done by experienced medical physicists and evaluated by the same radiation oncologist.

The clinical target volume (CTV) was defined as the whole prostate gland. The planning target volume (PTV) was created by adding 3 mm in posterior direction and 5 mm margin in other directions to CTV. The setting of PTV margin is based on previous literature [14]. Contours of rectum and bladder were delineated using the whole organ volumes. Urethra was defined as containing both the intra-prostate and membranous segments. Target and OAR contours were manually generated in Multiplan planning system by physicians for the initial CK treatments. Then the CT images and contours were transferred from the CK to the HT treatment planning system. The prescribed dose is 37.5Gy in 5 fractions, assigned to cover more than 95% volume of the PTV. The dose constraints of normal tissues are listed in Table 1.

Table 1
Normal tissue dose constraints

Critical organ Constraints

Rectum V36 Gy <1cc

Bladder V37 Gy <10cc

Urethra V49 Gy <10%

Penile bulb V29.5 Gy ≤ 50%.

Critical organ	Constraints
Rectum	V36 Gy <1cc
Bladder	V37 Gy <10cc
Urethra	V49 Gy <10%
Penile bulb	V29.5 Gy ≤ 50%.

2.2 Dosimetric analysis

The plans contained the simulation result of dosimetric distribution for each case, and the dose-volume histograms (DVHs) could be generated by planning systems for further analysis. For each of the CK and HT plans, the DVHs were exported as text files from planning system and then analyzed with Python. Coverage of PTV, normalized conformity index, heterogeneity index and dose gradient index were calculated as per the following equations:

2.2.1 Coverage of PTV

$PVT Coverage = \frac{Volume of PVT covered by perscribed does}{Volume of PVT}$

2.2.2 New conformity index

The new conformity index (nCI) is generally used to evaluate the degree of dose conformity for radiosurgery plans. A perfect plan would have a nCI of 1.0. $nCI = \frac{Volume of prescription isodose \times Volume of PTV}{{(Volume of PTV covered by prescribed dose)}^{2}}$

2.2.3 Heterogeneity index

The heterogeneity index (HI) is a tool to describe the heterogeneity of dose distribution in target volume. The value of HI is always greater than 1. A perfect uniform dose distribution would have a HI of 1.0. $HI = \frac{Minimum dose in 5 % of the target volume (D 5 % of PTV DVH)}{Minimum does in 95 % of the target volume (D 95 % of PTV DVH)}$

2.2.4 Dose gradient index

Dose gradient index (GI) is used to measure how steep of dose falloff outside the target. The value of GI is always greater than 1. A steeper dose gradient would have a lower value of GI. $GI = \frac{Volume of 50 % prescription isdose}{Volume of PTV}$

The integral dose (ID) to the body (excluding the PTV) was also calculated as $ID = \sum_{i} V i \times D i$

where v_i is the ith volume (L) receiving the dose of D_i (Gy). The range of i is depended on the bin number of DVH.

The dosimetric indices used in normal tissue constraints were compared between CK and HT plans. Among these organs, rectum is most concerned. So we also compare the relative volume of rectum received 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% of prescribed dose to describe the statistic difference over the whole curve of DVH, and D1cc, D2cc, D5cc, and D10cc of the rectum were considered to be significantly associated with rectal bleeding [27].

2.3 Radiobiologic evaluation

For radiobiologic evaluation, DVHs were used to calculate the generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD, [42]) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) by an in-house Python program. The Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) model used for NTCP calculation [29, 35]. The radiobiological parameters for rectum and bladder toxicities were extracted from previous publications (Table 2). DVH was reduced to gEUD, a single dose value attributed uniformly across the entire volume and is assumed to result in an equivalent biological effect as the originally heterogeneous dose distribution would predict. gEUD is a good tool for comparing the dose-effect relations of target response and normal tissue toxicity amongst varying heterogeneous dose distributions. The formula of gEUD is taken from Niemierko’s phenomenological model [42]. In order to mitigate various SBRT fractionation schemes, the dose bins of DVH were converted to linear quadratic equivalent doses of 2Gy per fraction. This “equivalent dose in 2Gy fractions” (EQD₂) wascalculated as

Table 2
Parameters of biologic model

Endpoint TD 50 (Gy) m n

Gulliford et al. [17] Loose stools (G1&2) 59.9 0.34 0.38

Loose stools (G2) 74 0.25 0.45

Proctitis (G1&2) 57.3 0.33 0.2

Proctitis (G2) 68.3 0.22 0.17

Rectal bleeding (G1&2) 59.2 0.29 0.17

Rectal bleeding (G2) 68.9 0.16 0.18

Rectal urgency (G1&2) 54.1 0.52 0.4

Rectal urgency (G2) 70.1 0.37 0.45

Stool frequency (G1&2) 62.6 0.6 0.36

Stool frequency (G2) 155.4 0.46 0.29

Peeters et al. [43] Rectal bleeding (>G3) 81 0.14 0.13

Stool frequency (>G2) 84 0.24 0.39

Kole TP et al. [26] Late urinary toxicity (SBRT) 38.7 0.19 0.13

Michalski et al. [39] (QUANTEC) Late rectal bleeding (>G2) 76.9 0.13 0.09

Tucker et al. [54] Late rectal toxicity (>G2) 78 0.14 0.08

Fleming et al. [11] Late rectal toxicity (>G2) – – 0.12

Late bladder toxicity (>G2) – – 0.5

	Endpoint	TD 50 (Gy)	m	n
Gulliford et al. [17]	Loose stools (G1&2)	59.9	0.34	0.38
	Loose stools (G2)	74	0.25	0.45
	Proctitis (G1&2)	57.3	0.33	0.2
	Proctitis (G2)	68.3	0.22	0.17
	Rectal bleeding (G1&2)	59.2	0.29	0.17
	Rectal bleeding (G2)	68.9	0.16	0.18
	Rectal urgency (G1&2)	54.1	0.52	0.4
	Rectal urgency (G2)	70.1	0.37	0.45
	Stool frequency (G1&2)	62.6	0.6	0.36
	Stool frequency (G2)	155.4	0.46	0.29
Peeters et al. [43]	Rectal bleeding (>G3)	81	0.14	0.13
	Stool frequency (>G2)	84	0.24	0.39
Kole TP et al. [26]	Late urinary toxicity (SBRT)	38.7	0.19	0.13
Michalski et al. [39] (QUANTEC)	Late rectal bleeding (>G2)	76.9	0.13	0.09
Tucker et al. [54]	Late rectal toxicity (>G2)	78	0.14	0.08
Fleming et al. [11]	Late rectal toxicity (>G2)	–	–	0.12
	Late bladder toxicity (>G2)	–	–	0.5

${EQD}_{2} = D \times \frac{d + α / β}{2 + α / β}$

where D is the total dose, and d is the dose per fraction. The α/β value for prostate cancer was assumed to be 1.4Gy [41]. The α/β value for late toxicities of rectum and bladder is assumed to be both 3Gy. The formula of gEUD is defined with $gEUD = {(\sum_{i} ν i \times {EQD}_{2} i^{1 / n})}^{n}$

where vi is the ith volume receiving biological equivalent dose EQD2i. The empirical parameter n characterizes the dose-volume effect. When n is close to 1.0 then the organ is considered to have a parallel structure, and the value of gEUD will approach the mean dose for the entire volume. When n is close to 0 then the organ is considered to have a serial structure, which means that the volume effect is small and the value of gEUD will be near the maximum dose within the volume. Some studies have used the parameter “a” for EUD calculation, where “a” is equal to 1/n. Parameter n is assumed to be –0.05 (a = –20) for prostate cancer [16].

According to the LKB model, NTCP is calculated using the following equations: $t = \frac{gEUD - {TD}_{50}}{m \times {TD}_{50}}$ $NTCP = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} π \times \int_{- \infty}^{t} e^{- \frac{x}{2}} dx$

TD50 is the uniform dose causing 50% complication probability, and parameter m characterizes the steepest slope of the sigmoid NTCP curve. The statistical method for comparing the plans was Wilcoxon’ sign rank test using Python programming. If the p value < 0.05, the differences were considered statistically significant.

3 Result

The mean volume of prostates is 43.47±17.15 cc. Averaged cumulative dose-volume histogram (DVH) of all 12 cases for PTV, rectum, bladder, penile bulb and urethra from CK and HT plans are shown in Fig. 1. Target coverage, homogeneity, conformity and dose gradient of PTV are presented in Table 3. PTV coverage for CK and HT were both adequate by achieving the goal of being greater than 95%. HT plans showed a slightly better coverage of the PTV as compared to CK plans (97.74±0.86% vs. 96.56±1.17%; p < 0.05), along with more homogenous dose distribution as shown by the homogeneity index (1.04±0.01 vs. 1.21±0.02; p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the GI of HT and CK plans (4.59±0.3% vs. 4.72±0.57%; p = 0.48), which indicated that HT and CK resulted in a comparable drop-off in dose gradient beyond PTV. The nCI was better in HT plans (1.16±0.05 vs. 1.21±0.04; p < 0.05).

Fig.1

Averaged DVHs.

Table 3

Dosimetric index of target and organ at risk

		CK mean±SD	Tomo mean±SD	p value
PTV	D2% (near max), Gy	46.46±0.84	39.86±0.34	0.0022^*
	D50% (median), Gy	42.18±0.46	39.17±0.32	0.0022^*
	D98% (near min), Gy	36.95±0.44	37.37±0.33	0.0096^*
	Dmean, Gy	42.11±0.47	39.07±0.27	0.0022^*
	V100%, %	96.56±1.17	97.74±0.86	0.0076^*
	V95%, %	99.48±0.32	99.73±0.3	0.0995
	GI	4.72±0.55	4.54±0.33	0.4802
	HI	1.21±0.01	1.04±0.01	0.0022^*
	nCI	1.21±0.04	1.16±0.05	0.0096^*
Body	Integral Dose, Gy’L	57.05±11.68	46.59±6.44	0.0029^*
	(excluding PTV)
Rectum	V10%, %	97.81±3.31	88.49±9.66	0.0044^*
	V20%, %	90.55±7.87	78.29±14.01	0.0022^*
	V30%, %	74.7±15.19	63.85±15.02	0.0096^*
	V40%, %	60.12±15.73	47.0±15.86	0.0029^*
	V50%, %	46.03±13.23	32.05±12.44	0.0029^*
	V60%, %	34.47±11.02	22.0±9.05	0.0022^*
	V70%, %	24.73±8.73	14.5±6.47	0.0022^*
	V80%, %	15.63±5.88	8.59±4.47	0.0022^*
	V90%, %	6.92±2.67	3.8±2.34	0.0022^*
	D1cc, Gy	34.95±1.64	33.96±1.82	0.0499^*
	D2cc, Gy	33.07±3.2	31.37±2.34	0.0281^*
	D5cc, Gy	28.55±5.53	25.2±3.22	0.0342^*
	D10cc, Gy	22.28±7.14	19.24±3.49	0.0342^*
	V18.13 Gy, %	48.17±13.58	34.05±12.89	0.0029^*
	V27.19 Gy, %	22.43±8.07	12.9±5.98	0.0022^*
	V29 Gy, %	18.04±6.68	10.14±4.95	0.0022^*
	V32.63 Gy, %	9.48±3.69	5.22±2.98	0.0022^*
	V36.5 Gy, %	1.2±0.46	0.87±0.8	0.2094
	V36 Gy, cc	0.64±0.21	0.43±0.25	0.0342^*
Bladder	V36 Gy, %	7.09±3.4	8.87±3.68	0.3078
	V37 Gy, cc	4.16±1.99	5.33±1.66	0.1361
Urethra	V49 Gy, %	0.06±0.03	0.0±0.0	0.0022^*
Penile Bulb	V29.5 Gy, %	16.09±20.47	12.55±16.29	0.0995

Dosimetric indices for OARs are listed in Table 3. Averaged DVH and dosimetric indices for rectum revealed that the volume receiving any dose level of radiation was significantly lower in HT than in CK plans. The dosimetric indices of V37Gy and V37.5Gy for bladder were lower in CK plans. There was no difference in the selected dosimetric index of V49 for urethra and V29.5 for penile bulb. However, averaged DVH for urethra showed that the volume receiving doses higher than prescribed dose was obviously higher in CK plans. The volume of penile bulb exposed to low doses was lower with CK as shown in the corresponding DVH. The integral doses to the body excluding PTV were higher in CK plans (57.05±11.68Gy’L vs. 46.59±6.44Gy’L; p < 0.05). The DVH of body also showed that the volume receiving low dose is smaller in HT plans (Fig. 1).

EUDs of target volume and critical organs are showed in Table 4. The EUD values of CTV were significantly higher in CK plans (119.45±3.69Gy vs. 106.14±1.65Gy; p < 005). EUD values for rectal toxicities with n = 0.12 were lower in HT plans (53.98±2.15Gy vs. 50.04±3.64Gy; p < 005). There was no difference in the EUD value for bladder toxicity with n = 0.5 (p = 0.75). Calculated NTCP for rectal and bladder toxicities are listed in Table 5. HT improved the complication probability for rectal toxicities as compared to CK. However, the complication probability for late genitourinary toxicity was not significantly different between the two techniques.

^*p < 0.05.

Table 4

Calculated EUD for rectal/urinary toxicities and target volumes are compared between CK plans and HT plans

	EUD(CK) mean±SD	EUD(Tomo) mean±SD	p value
Bladder, n = 0.5	37.1±9.73	39.54±6.75	0.7537
Rectum, n = 0.12	53.98±2.15	50.04±3.64	0.0022^*
CTV, Prostate	119.45±3.69	106.14±1.65	0.0022^*

^*p < 0.05.

Table 5

Calculated NTCP for rectal and urinary toxicities are compared between CK and HT plans

Parameters source	Endpoint	NTCP(%, CK)	NTCP(%, Tomo)	p value
		mean±SD	mean±SD
Gulliford et al. [17]	Loose stools (G1&2)	14.82±5.23	8.99±4.01	0.0022^*
	Loose stools (G2)	2.37±1.54	1.04±0.81	0.0022^*
	Proctitis (G1&2)	29.42±5.75	21.07±6.38	0.0022^*
	Proctitis (G2)	10.61±3.47	6.23±3.22	0.0022^*
	Rectal bleeding (G1&2)	28.31±5.55	20.07±6.48	0.0022^*
	Rectal bleeding (G2)	3.64±2.18	1.52±1.37	0.0022^*
	Rectal urgency (G1&2)	27.98±5.55	21.03±5.1	0.0022^*
	Rectal urgency (G2)	9.84±3.33	6.26±2.49	0.0022^*
	Stool frequency (G1&2)	26.47±3.85	21.38±3.77	0.0022^*
Stool frequency (G2)	5.61±0.63	4.74±0.65	0.0022^*
Peeters et al. [43]	Rectal bleeding (>G3)	0.76±0.44	0.34±0.32	0.0022^*
	Stool frequency (>G2)	1.28±0.79	0.57±0.42	0.0022^*
Kole TP et al. [26]	Late urinary toxicity (SBRT)	9.62±4.27	10.47±3.61	0.9375
Michalski et al. [39]	Late rectal bleeding (>G2)	2.87±1.09	1.62±1.24	0.0047^*
(QUANTEC)
Tucker et al. [54]	Late rectal toxicity (>G2)	4.29±1.24	2.69±1.7	0.0076^*

^*p < 0.05.

4 Discussion

With the increased interest in SBRT for localized prostate cancer, more and more institutes began trying IMRT-based treatment technologies other than CK. Volumetric arc therapy such as RapidArc^TM was demonstrated to have comparable dose distribution and advantage in faster delivery time as compared to CK [32, 36]. Macias et al. showed that HT is a feasible modality to treat prostate cancer with SBRT according to their initial clinical results [37]. However, as far as we know there has been no publication directly comparing CK and HT SBRT plans.

4.1 Target dose coverage, conformity and homogeneity

Our result showed that both CK and HT plans achieved adequate coverage and conformity for PTV with a prescribed dose of 37.5Gy. HT plans have slightly better coverage. The absence of flattening filter makes CK produce a steeper dose gradient. The dose distributions inside target volumes in CK plans are more inhomogeneous. As the DVHs of PTV show in Fig. 1, the PTV has more volume of cold and hot spots in CK pans. The larger proportion of hot spots in the target volumes in CK plans leads to an increase in mean dose and EUD. Dose escalation studies with conventional fractionation had proven that higher doses will improve clinical outcomes [19 , 49]. The RTOG 94-06 trial escalated the dose up to 79.2Gy using three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) [40]. The escalated dose could be as high as 86.4Gy using 5–7 field IMRT [49]. Further dose escalation using conventional fraction is limited by consideration of increased toxicities. Nevertheless, the prescribed dose of 37.5Gy in 5 fractions used in our study is equivalent to 96∼98.16Gy (using α/β= 1.4∼1.5Gy) for 2Gy per fraction, which is much higher than the escalated doses used in previous studies. The benefit of further dose escalation to such high dose regimen is unknown [33]. Furthermore, toxicity of intra-prostatic urethra should also be taken account into consideration. Cold spots in prostate may raise a concern in compromising tumor control. However, Levegrün et al. showed that cold spots in targets may not be correlated with biopsy outcome in clinical practice [30], probably because the organ motion and setup uncertainties reduce the impact of inhomogeneity.

4.2 Normal tissue

We attempted to decrease the volume to rectum irradiated with a dose of 36Gy during planning. Both CK and HT met the constraints. However, HT performed better in its ability to spare rectum at lower doses. The dosimetric indices of D1∼10cc for rectum are suggestive to be correlated with late rectal bleeding from the experience in brachytherapy [21, 27]. Our result showed that D1∼10cc of rectum were significantly lower in HT than in CK plans. Although both modalities achieved the constraint of V36Gy<1c.c. for rectum equally, clinical rectal toxicity was expected to be lower with HT. The dosimetric indices for bladder are better in CK plans but it is probably due to the smaller PTV margin in anterior direction of the prostate as compared to HT plans.

Unnecessary radiation delivered out of target would increase the risk of developing secondary malignancies [18]. Our result showed that the integral dose to the body is higher in CK plans. Moreover, Schneider et al. found that the planning system of CK underestimated the dose out of field, while the accuracy of dose is reliable up to 35 cm form the PTV border in HT planning system [45]. The actual dose delivered out of target with CK may be much higher than we have estimated. Ślosarek et al. compared the integral doses among CK, VMAT, IMRT and HT for prostate cancer treatment with a total dose of 36.25Gy delivered in 5 fractions [47]. The integral dose delivered to the body was higher with HT than CK, which is different from our result. This is probably caused by different objective parameters setup for constraints in the HT planning.

4.3 Radiobiological model analysis - EUD

Radiobiological analysis with EUD and NTCP for toxicities was also performed. EUD and NTCP were applied only for conventional fraction size. So the original DVHs were converted to BED₂-based DVHs using LQ model [5, 31]. EUDs were then calculated as previously described. The α/β value for late rectal toxicity has been suggested to be as high as 4.6Gy by analyzing the data of RTOG 94-06 trials [55] and 5.4Gy in Brenner’s review [3]. However, we assumed α/β to be a relatively low value of 3Gy in order to prevent underestimating such toxicity [55] using SBRT. In addition to comparing plans, EUD itself could also be an independent prognostic factor for rectal and urinary toxicities. Fleming et al. analyzed the correlation between EUD and toxicities of 180 patients treated with 3D-CRT for prostate cancer. EUD was calculated with parameter n = 0.12 for rectum and n = 0.5 for bladder. They found patients receiving an EUD of >63.1Gy to rectum and >53.4Gy to bladder have higher risk of developing grade 2+ rectal (30%) and urinary (33%) toxicities, respectively [11]. The averaged EUDs of rectum and bladder were much lower in our study, which is considered to be relative safe according to Fleming et al.’s study.

4.4 Radiobiological model analysis - NTCP

The respective values of parameters n, m and TD50 using the LKB-model for NTCP calculation vary widely amongst different studies [10 , 54], and there is no consensus currently. In this study, we obtained the parameters for rectal toxicities from QUANTEC recommendation [39] and the reports of Gulliford [17], Tucker [54] and Peeters [43]. The end points used in these NTCP parameter studies were not exactly the same. Most previous NTCP parameter studies focus on rectal bleeding or combined rectal toxicities. Gulliford offered NTCP parameters for other rectal toxicities which were less mentioned before [17]. Even with the similar end point of late rectal bleeding, our result showed that NTCP values differed with parameters from different sources. The calculated NTCP is also affected much by the choices of different α/β values. NTCP may not be able to be utilized to predict real toxicity rates precisely. However, it is adequate for comparing different treatment plans. The clinical result of 100 patients treated with similar setting of regimen and constraint using CK as reported by Chen et al. showed that the late GI and GU grade 2+ toxicity rates were 1% and 31%, respectively [7]. In this study, NTCPs for grade 2+ late rectal toxicities were also low. Furthermore, NTCPs for most of the late rectal toxicities are lower with HT than CK. The result agrees with the dosimetric indices of D1cc and EUD. However, the differences of rectal complication probabilities between CK and HT plans are not large.

There was no reliable NTCP model for bladder to estimate the urinary toxicity in the past as mentioned in QUANTEC report. Kole TP et al. recently published a set of LKB-NTCP parameters for late urinary toxicities generated from SBRT treatment [26]. There was no difference in NTCP of both delivery techniques for late urinary toxicity in our study, and this result was compatible with the EUD of bladder [11].

4.5 Limitation

Our study has some limitations. Inter-fraction and intra-fraction motions of the prostate have been considered to be important factors [28, 34]. CK is equipped with a kV-image-based tracking system for correcting intra-fraction error during treatment delivery, while HT has MVCT-based image guidance system which can only correct inter-fraction motion. Such difference may result in divergent clinical outcomes. However, this is unfortunately not amenable to be evaluated in our study.

The DVH were generated from different treatment planning system of HT and CK. We could not know the way they calculated DVH in detail inside planning system. However, the calculation of DVH is not complex. If there is difference that will probably be result from the way they dealing with interpretation between dose pixels. However, we believed that the difference could be small because the resolution of dose distribution is fine in modern planning system with adequatesetting.

The LKB NTCP model was designed in the setting of conventional fractionation, thus most of the parameters were not generated from SBRT data. There is a debate on applying LQ model to relatively large dose per fraction. However, a fraction size below 10Gy is still believed to be reliable for clinical application [4, 24]. Current LKB NTCP model might not be applicable with different modalities. Troeller et al. found that the estimated NTCP parameters derived from 3D-CRT and IMRT are different from each other [53]. HT and CK resulted in some differences in dose distribution. The influence of applying the same NTCP parameters to the two different modalities is unknown. It will be interesting to compare calculated NTCP with the actual clinical outcome in SBRT. On the other hand, further study for the feasibility of using LKB NTCP for SBRT should be performed.

5 Conclusion

In conclusion, HT was shown to provide comparable conformity and coverage for targets as with CK. A slightly better ability in sparing rectum with HT than CK, both dosimetrically and per radiobiologic consideration, could potentially translate into the advantage of lower late rectal toxicity.

References

Alongi

, Cozzi

, Arcangeli

, Iftode

, Comito

, Villa

et al., Linac based SBRT for prostate cancer in 5 fractions with VMAT and flattening filter free beams: Preliminary report of a phase II study, Radiat Oncol Lond Engl 8 (2013), 171.

Brenner

D.J.

and Hall

E.J.

, Fractionation and protraction for radiotherapy of prostate carcinoma, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 43(5) (1999), 1095–1101.

Brenner

D.J.

, Fractionation and late rectal toxicity, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 60(4) (2004), 1013–1015.

Brenner

D.J.

, The linear-quadratic model is an appropriate methodology for determining isoeffective doses at large doses per fraction, Semin Radiat Oncol 18(4) (2008), 234–239.

Brown

J.M.

, Carlson

D.J.

and Brenner

D.J.

, The tumor radiobiology of SRS and SBRT: Are more than the 5 R’s involved? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 88(2) (2014), 254–262.

Chen

A.M.

, Lee

N.Y.

, Yang

C.C.

, Liu

, Narayan

, Vijayakumar

et al., Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy using helical tomotherapy and segmental multileaf collimator-based techniques for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Dosimetric analysis incorporating quality assurance guidelines from RTOG, Technol Cancer Res Treat 9(3) (2010), 291–298.

Chen

L.N.

, Suy

, Uhm

, Oermann

E.K.

, Ju

A.W.

, Chen

et al., Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for clinically localized prostate cancer: The Georgetown University experience, Radiat Oncol Lond Engl 8 (2013), 58.

Chen

Y.-J.

, Liu

, Han

, Tsai

P.T.

, Schultheiss

T.E.

, Pezner

R.D.

et al., Helical tomotherapy for radiotherapy in esophageal cancer: A preferred plan with better conformal target coverage and more homogeneous dose distribution, Med Dosim Off J Am Assoc Med Dosim 32(3) (2007), 166–171.

Dasu

and Toma-Dasu

, Prostate alpha/beta revisited – an analysis of clinical results from 14 168 patients, Acta Oncol Stockh Swed 51(8) (2012), 963–974.

10.

Fellin

, Fiorino

, Rancati

, Vavassori

, Barra

, Cagna

et al., Late rectal bleeding after conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: NTCP modelling, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 72(1) (2008), S332.

11.

Fleming

, Kelly

, Thirion

, Fitzpatrick

and Armstrong

, A Method for the Prediction of Late Organ-at-Risk Toxicity After Radiotherapy of the Prostate Using Equivalent Uniform Dose, Int J Radiat Oncol 80(2) (2011), 608–613.

12.

Fowler

, Chappell

and Ritter

, Is α/β for prostate tumors really low? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 50(4) (2001), 1021–1031.

13.

Fowler

J.F.

, The radiobiology of prostate cancer including new aspects of fractionated radiotherapy, Acta Oncol Stockh Swed 44(3) (2005), 265–276.

14.

Freeman

D.E.

and King

C.R.

, Stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk prostate cancer: Five-year outcomes, Radiat Oncol 6(1) (2011), 3.

15.

Fukuda

, Seo

, Shiomi

, Yamada

, Ogata

, Morimoto

et al., Dosimetry analyses comparing high-dose-rate brachytherapy, administered as monotherapy for localized prostate cancer, with stereotactic body radiation therapy simulated using CyberKnife, J Radiat Res (Tokyo) 55(6) (2014), 1114–1121.

16.

Ghilezan

, Yan

, Liang

, Jaffray

, Wong

and Martinez

, Online image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: How much improvement can we expect? A theoretical assessment of clinical benefits and potential dose escalation by improving precision and accuracy of radiation delivery, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 60(5) (2004), 1602–1610.

17.

Gulliford

S.L.

, Partridge

, Sydes

M.R.

, Webb

, Evans

P.M.

and Dearnaley

D.P.

, Parameters for the Lyman Kutcher Burman (LKB) model of Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) for specific rectal complications observed in clinical practise, Radiother Oncol 102(3) (2012), 347–351.

18.

Hall

E.J.

and Wuu

C.-S.

, Radiation-induced second cancers: The impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56(1) (2003), 83–88.

19.

Hanks

G.E.

, Hanlon

A.L.

, Epstein

and Horwitz

E.M.

, Dose response in prostate cancer with 8–12 years’ follow-up, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 54(2) (2002), 427–435.

20.

Jabbari

, Weinberg

V.K.

, Kaprealian

, Hsu

I.-C.

, Ma

, Chuang

et al., Stereotactic body radiotherapy as monotherapy or post–external beam radiotherapy boost for prostate cancer: technique, early toxicity, and PSA response, Int J Radiat Oncol 82(1) (2012), 228–234.

21.

Kato

, Tran

D.N.L.

, Ohno

, Nakano

, Kiyohara

, Ohkubo

et al., CT-based 3D dose-volume parameter of the rectum and late rectal complication in patients with cervical cancer treated with high-dose-rate intracavitary brachytherapy, J Radiat Res (Tokyo) 51(2) (2010), 215–221.

22.

King

C.R.

, Brooks

J.D.

, Gill

, Pawlicki

, Cotrutz

and Presti

J.C.

Jr , Stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: interim results of a prospective phase II clinical trial, Int J Radiat Oncol 73(4) (2009), 1043–1048.

23.

King

C.R.

, Brooks

J.D.

, Gill

and Presti

J.C.

Jr , Long-term outcomes from a prospective trial of stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk prostate cancer, Int J Radiat Oncol 82(2) (2012), 877–882.

24.

Kirkpatrick

J.P.

, Meyer

J.J.

and Marks

L.B.

, The linear-quadratic model is inappropriate to model high dose per fraction effects in radiosurgery, Semin Radiat Oncol 18(4) (2008), 240–243.

25.

Kole

T.P.

, Nichols

R.C.

, Lei

, Wu

, Huh

S.N.

, Morris

C.G.

et al., A dosimetric comparison of ultra-hypofractionated passively scattered proton radiotherapy and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer, Acta Oncol (2014), 1–7.

26.

Kole

T.P.

, Tong

, Wu

, Lei

, Obayomi-Davies

, Chen

L.N.

et al., Late urinary toxicity modeling after stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer, Acta Oncol (2015), 1–7.

27.

Konishi

, Yoshioka

, Isohashi

, Sumida

, Kawaguchi

, Kotsuma

et al., Correlation between dosimetric parameters and late rectal and urinary toxicities in patients treated with high-dose-rate brachytherapy used as monotherapy for prostate cancer, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 75(4) (2009), 1003–1007.

28.

Kupelian

P.A.

, Langen

K.M.

, Willoughby

T.R.

, Zeidan

O.A.

and Meeks

S.L.

, Image-guided radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: Treating a moving target, Semin Radiat Oncol 18(1) (2008), 58–66.

29.

Kutcher

G.J.

, Burman

, Brewster

, Goitein

and Mohan

, Histogram reduction method for calculating complication probabilities for three-dimensional treatment planning evaluations, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 21(1) (1991), 137–146.

30.

Levegrün

, Jackson

, Zelefsky

M.J.

, Venkatraman

E.S.

, Skwarchuk

M.W.

, Schlegel

et al., Analysis of biopsy outcome after three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy of prostate cancer using dose-distribution variables and tumor control probability models, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 47(5) (2000), 1245–1260.

31.

Liao

, Joiner

, Huang

and Burmeister

, Hypofractionation: What does it mean for prostate cancer treatment? Int J Radiat Oncol 76(1) (2010), 260–268.

32.

Lin

Y.-W.

, Lin

K.-H.

, Ho

H.-W.

, Lin

H.-M.

, Lin

L.-C.

, Lee

S.P.

et al., Treatment plan comparison between stereotactic body radiation therapy techniques for prostate cancer: Non-isocentric CyberKnife versus isocentric RapidArc, Phys Med 30(6) (2014), 654–661.

33.

Ling

C.C.

, Roy

, Sahoo

, Wallner

and Anderson

, Quantifying the effect of dose inhomogeneity in brachytherapy: Application to permanent prostatic implant with 125I seeds, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 28(4) (1994), 971–978.

34.

Litzenberg

D.W.

, Balter

J.M.

, Hadley

S.W.

, Sandler

H.M.

, Willoughby

T.R.

, Kupelian

P.A.

et al., Influence of intrafraction motion on margins for prostate radiotherapy, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65(2) (2006), 548–553.

35.

Lyman

J.T.

, Complication probability as assessed from dose-volume histograms, Radiat Res Suppl 8 (1985), S13–S19.

36.

MacDougall

N.D.

, Dean

and Muirhead

, Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: Is Rapidarc a Better Solution than Cyberknife? Clin Oncol 26(1) (2014), 4–9.

37.

Macias

V.A.

, Blanco

M.L.

and Perez-Romasanta

L.A.

, Initial experience with stereotactic body radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer using helical tomotherapy, Clin Transl Oncol Off Publ Fed Span Oncol Soc Natl Cancer Inst Mex 16(4) (2014), 380–385.

38.

Madsen

B.L.

, Hsi

R.A.

, Pham

H.T.

, Fowler

J.F.

, Esagui

and Corman

, 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 67(4) (2007), 1099–1105.

39.

Michalski

J.M.

, Gay

, Jackson

, Tucker

S.L.

and Deasy

J.O.

, Radiation dose-volume effects in radiation-induced rectal injury, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 76(3 Suppl) (2010), S123–S129.

40.

Michalski

, Winter

, Roach

, Markoe

, Sandler

H.M.

, Ryu

et al., Clinical outcome of patients treated with 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) for prostate cancer on RTOG 9406, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83(3) (2012), e363–e370.

41.

Miralbell

, Roberts

S.A.

, Zubizarreta

and Hendry

J.H.

, Dose-fractionation sensitivity of prostate cancer deduced from radiotherapy outcomes of 5,969 patients in seven international institutional datasets: α/β = 1.4 (0.9-2.2) Gy, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82(1) (2012), e17–e24.

42.

Niemierko

, Reporting and analyzing dose distributions: A concept of equivalent uniform dose, Med Phys 24(1) (1997), 103–110.

43.

Peeters

S.T.H.

, Hoogeman

M.S.

, Heemsbergen

W.D.

, Hart

A.A.M.

, Koper

P.C.M.

and Lebesque

J.V.

, Rectal bleeding, fecal incontinence, and high stool frequency after conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: Normal tissue complication probability modeling, Int J Radiat Oncol 66(1) (2006), 11–19.

44.

Proust-Lima

, Taylor

J.M.G.

, Sécher

, Sandler

, Kestin

, Pickles

et al., Confirmation of a low α/β ratio for prostate cancer treated by external beam radiation therapy alone using a post-treatment repeated-measures model for PSA dynamics, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 79(1) (2011), 195–201.

45.

Schneider

, Hälg

R.A.

, Hartmann

, Mack

, Storelli

, Joosten

et al., Accuracy of out-of-field dose calculation of tomotherapy and cyberknife treatment planning systems: A dosimetric study, Z Für Med Phys 24(3) (2014), 211–215.

46.

Sheng

, Molloy

J.A.

and Read

P.W.

, Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dosimetry of the head and neck: A comparison of treatment plans using linear accelerator-based IMRT and helical tomotherapy, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65(3) (2006), 917–923.

47.

Ślosarek

, Osewski

and Grządziel

, Radwan

, Dolla

Ł.

, Szlag

, et al., Integral dose: Comparison between four techniques for prostate radiotherapy, Rep Pract Oncol Radiother J Gt Cancer Cent Pozn Pol Soc Radiat Oncol 20(2) (2015), 99–103.

48.

Söhn

, Yan

, Liang

, Meldolesi

, Vargas

and Alber

, Incidence of late rectal bleeding in high-dose conformal radiotherapy of prostate cancer using equivalent uniform dose–based and dose–volume–based normal tissue complication probability models, Int J Radiat Oncol 67(4) (2007), 1066–1073.

49.

Spratt

D.E.

, Pei

, Yamada

, Kollmeier

M.A.

, Cox

and Zelefsky

M.J.

, Long-term survival and toxicity in patients treated with high-dose intensity modulated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85(3) (2013), 686–692.

50.

Spratt

D.E.

, Scala

L.M.

, Folkert

, Voros

, Cohen

G.N.

, Happersett

et al., A comparative dosimetric analysis of virtual stereotactic body radiotherapy to high-dose-rate monotherapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer, Brachytherapy 12(5) (2013), 428–433.

51.

Tang

C.I.

, Loblaw

D.A.

, Cheung

, Holden

, Morton

, Basran

P.S.

et al., Phase I/II Study of a Five-fraction Hypofractionated Accelerated Radiotherapy Treatment for Low-risk Localised Prostate Cancer: Early Results of pHART3, Clin Oncol 20(10) (2008), 729–737.

52.

Townsend

N.C.

, Huth

B.J.

, Ding

, Garber

, Mooreville

, Arrigo

et al., Acute toxicity after cyberknife-delivered hypofractionated radiotherapy for treatment of prostate cancer, Am J Clin Oncol 34(1) (2011), 6–10.

53.

Troeller

, Yan

, Marina

, Schulze

, Alber

, Parodi

et al., Comparison and limitations of DVH-based NTCP models derived from 3D-CRT and IMRT data for prediction of gastrointestinal toxicities in prostate cancer patients by using propensity score matched pair analysis, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 91(2) (2015), 435–443.

54.

Tucker

S.L.

, Dong

, Bosch

W.R.

, Michalski

, Winter

, Lee

A.K.

et al., Fit of a generalized lyman normal-tissue complication probability (NTCP) model to grade ≥ 2 late rectal toxicity data from patients treated on protocol RTOG 94-06, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69(3) (2007), S8–S9.

55.

Tucker

S.L.

, Thames

H.D.

, Michalski

J.M.

, Bosch

W.R.

, Mohan

, Winter

et al., Estimation of α/β for late rectal toxicity based on RTOG 94-06, Int J Radiat Oncol 81(2) (2011), 600–605.

56.

Wang

J.Z.

, Guerrero

and Li

X.A.

, How low is the alpha/beta ratio for prostate cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 55(1) (2003), 194–203.

Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison of Cyberknife and Tomotherapy in stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

Abstract

Keywords

1 Introduction

2 Material and method

2.1 Patient selection and treatment planning

Table 1 Normal tissue dose constraints Critical organ Constraints Rectum V36 Gy <1cc Bladder V37 Gy <10cc Urethra V49 Gy <10% Penile bulb V29.5 Gy ≤ 50%.

2.2.1 Coverage of PTV

2.2.2 New conformity index

2.2.3 Heterogeneity index

2.2.4 Dose gradient index

2.3 Radiobiologic evaluation

4.1 Target dose coverage, conformity and homogeneity

4.2 Normal tissue

4.3 Radiobiological model analysis - EUD

4.4 Radiobiological model analysis - NTCP

4.5 Limitation

5 Conclusion

References

Table 1
Normal tissue dose constraints

Critical organ Constraints

Rectum V36 Gy <1cc

Bladder V37 Gy <10cc

Urethra V49 Gy <10%

Penile bulb V29.5 Gy ≤ 50%.