RESUMO
The aim of this planning study was to compare the dosimetric outcomes of Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT), Proton Beam Therapy (PBT), and conventional External Beam Radiation Therapy (cEBRT) in the treatment of thoracic spinal metastases originating from breast or prostate cancer. Our study utilized data from 30 different treatment plans and evaluated target coverage and doses to vital organs at risk (OARs), such as the spinal cord, heart, esophagus, and lungs. The results showed that VMAT and PBT achieved superior target coverage and significantly lower doses to the spinal cord compared to cEBRT (target: median PTVD95%: 75.2 for cEBRT vs. 92.9 and 91.7 for VMAT (p < 0.001) and PBT (p < 0.001), respectively; spinal cord: median Dmax%: 105.1 for cEBRT vs. 100.4 and 103.6 for VMAT (p < 0.001) and PBT (p = 0.002), respectively). Specifically, VMAT was notable for its superior target coverage and PBT for significantly lower doses to heart, lungs, and esophagus. However, VMAT resulted in higher lung doses, indicating potential trade-offs among different techniques. The study demonstrated the relative advantages of VMAT and PBT over traditional RT in the palliative treatment of spinal metastases using conventional fractionation. These findings underscore the potential of VMAT and PBT to improve dosimetric outcomes, suggesting that they may be more suitable for certain patient groups for whom the sparing of specific OARs is especially important.
RESUMO
Purpose: Dose painting (DP) is a radiation therapy (RT) strategy for patients with heterogeneous tumors delivering higher dose to radiation resistant regions and less to sensitive ones, thus aiming to maximize tumor control with limited side effects. The success of DP treatments is influenced by the spatial accuracy in dose delivery. Adaptive RT (ART) workflows can reduce the overall geometric dose delivery uncertainty. The purpose of this study is to dosimetrically compare ART and non-adaptive conventional RT workflows for delivery of DP prescriptions in the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). Materials and methods: We performed a planning and treatment simulation study of four study arms. Adaptive and conventional workflows were tested in combination with DP and Homogeneous dose. We used image data from 5 PCa patients that had been treated on the Elekta Unity MR linac; the patients had been imaged in treatment position before each treatment fraction (7 in total). The local radiation sensitivity from apparent diffusion coefficient maps of 15 high-risk PCa patients was modelled in a previous study. these maps were used as input for optimization of DP plans aiming for maximization of tumor control probability (TCP) under rectum dose constraints. A range of prostate doses were planned for the homogeneous arms. Adaptive plans were replanned based on the anatomy-of-the-day, whereas conventional plans were planned using a pre-treatment image and subsequently recalculated on the anatomy-of-the-day. The dose from 7 fractions was accumulated using dose mapping. The endpoints studied were the TCP and dose-volume histogram metrics for organs at risk. Results: Accumulated DP doses (adaptive and conventional) resulted in high TCP, between 96-99%. The largest difference between adaptive and conventional DP was 2.6 percentage points (in favor of adaptive DP). An analysis of the dose per fraction revealed substantial target misses for one patient in the conventional workflow that-if systematic-could jeopardize the TCP. Compared to homogeneous prescriptions with equal mean prostate dose, DP resulted in slightly higher TCP. Conclusion: Compared to homogeneous dose, DP maintains or marginally increases the TCP. Adaptive DP workflows could avoid target misses compared to conventional workflows.
