1 / 40

Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology

Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology. Howard Sandler. Prostate Cancer. Model for use of advanced technologies Common, long follow-up, simple geometric relationship to critical structures. Dose Limiting Toxicity. Rectal toxicity What about bladder?. Garg, et al. IJROBP

haamid
Télécharger la présentation

Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Workshop on Advanced Technologies in Radiation Oncology Howard Sandler

  2. Prostate Cancer • Model for use of advanced technologies • Common, long follow-up, simple geometric relationship to critical structures

  3. Dose Limiting Toxicity • Rectal toxicity • What about bladder?

  4. Garg, et al. IJROBP 66:1294,2006

  5. GU Morbidity Late Morbidity from Early Proton Study – median FU 13 yrs Gardner, et al. MGH J Urol167:123,2002 GI Morbidity

  6. 50.4 photon + 16.8 photon 50.4 photon + 25.2 CGE proton Shipley, et al. IJROBP 32:3,1995

  7. RTOG 9406?

  8. RTOG 9406 • 1084 patients from 34 institutions • 36% had neoadjuvant hormonal rx • By dose level, 5 yr OS is 89%, 87%, 88%, 89%, [95%*] * 3-yr OS

  9. RTOG 9406 – Biochemical Results

  10. RTOG 9406 – Toxicity

  11. RTOG 9406 – Toxicity • Grade 3+ • By dose level • 4%, 4%, 5%, 7%, 10%

  12. DVH Dose- Volume Histogram

  13. Grade ≥2 Rectal Morbidity at 70 Gy Huang, et al MD Anderson IJROBP 54:1314,2002

  14. Rectal Bleeding Requiring Laser Treatment or Transfusion (3DCRT) Peeters et al. IJROBP 61:1019, 2005

  15. Peeters et al. IJROBP 64:1151, 2006

  16. LKB Modelling of Dutch Study – Uses Entire DVH n = 0.13, TD50 81 Gy, m = 0.14, p=0.025 Peeters et al. IJROBP 66:11, 2006

  17. Rectal Constraint

  18. 64 Gy 3 field Conv – open Conf – 16 mm GTV-block margin 90% coverage HD vol reduced by 40% Bladder toxicity NS

  19. Modelling Data from Marsden Trial • Dose-surface histograms • 79 pts available • Physical dose converted using α/β=3 • 1000 points per contour (= points per slice) Fenwick, et al IJROBP 49:473–480, 2001

  20. Randomized Trials • Of higher dose vs. lower dose?

  21. PROG 9509 T1b-2b prostate cancer PSA <15ng/ml • Trial design • No hormonal therapy r a n d o m i z a t i o n Proton boost 19.8 GyE Proton boost 28.8GyE 3-D conformal photons 50.4 Gy 3-D conformal photons 50.4 Gy Total prostate dose 79.2 GyE Total prostate dose 70.2 GyE

  22. Zietman, et al. JAMA2005;294:1233-1239

  23. Morbidity? Zietman, et al. JAMA2005;294:1233-1239

  24. Dutch Study Points • ASTRO no backdating • 21% had hormonal rx • 0 mm post PTV marginfrom 68-78 Gy • Dose prescribed toisocenter Peeters et al. JCO 24:1990,2006

  25. Randomized Trials • Of altered fractionation vs. standard fractionation?

  26. Hypofractionation

  27. Hypofractionated Randomized Trial • 16 Canadian regional centres • 66 Gy in 33 fx vs. 52.5 Gy in 20 fx (2.62) • Simple conformal rx • Non-inferiority design with abs diff 7.5% Lukka, et al. JCO 23:6132,2005

  28. 7% worse in short arm

  29. RTOG 0415 Schema 73.8 Gy/41 Fx T1c-2a GS <7 PSA <10 70 Gy/28 Fx n=800 Endpoint is 5 Year BFFF Non-inferiority margin 7% (Control 85%, Exp 78%)

  30. Other Hypofractionation Randomized Trials • CHHIP (Conv or Hypo High Dose IMRT) • N=2200 • 3 arm study • Standard vs. 2 hypofractionated arms

  31. Randomized Trials • Particle vs. photon? • No PSA era trials • MGH proton, RTOG neutron

  32. Particle Therapy • Protons • Bragg peak • Concerns • ‘Wide’ penumbra due to scattering • Neutron dose unless proton IMRT (scanned beam) is used (from p,n reaction)

  33. Carbon Ion • Higher LET - ?Better for more “resistant” tumors • ?Fewer fractions needed “The promising results obtained with carbon radiotherapy need confirmation in controlled clinical trials with large patient numbers comparing carbon ion RT with photon IMRT and proton RT taking also into account toxicity and quality of life.” Schulz-Ertner, et al Radiation Therapy With Charged Particles Semin Radiat Oncol 16:249,2006

  34. Future Technologies/Areas for Study • Particle therapy • Carbon vs. Proton vs. Photon IMRT • Hypofractionation • Can the low α/β model for prostate be verified? • NTCP modelling • Randomized trials can help • Target motion • Issue for all externally delivered, highly conformal dose approaches

More Related