Skip to content

Optimized 2D-RT for Prostate Cancer

Definition of Fields Margins for Optimized 2D Radiotherapy of Prostate Carcinoma

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03339531
Enrollment
20
Registered
2017-11-13
Start date
2015-02-02
Completion date
2015-12-18
Last updated
2018-03-13

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Prostate Cancer

Keywords

2D, prostate neoplasms, radiotherapy, simulation

Brief summary

Prostate cancer (CAP) is one of the most common malignancies in men, both in Western countries and developing countries. Radiation therapy (RT) is an important therapeutic option. New technologies (3D, IMRT, IGRT, VMAT) have been introduced in the last decades, with a progressive improvement of clinical outcome. However, in many countries the only treatment option is the traditional 2D technique based on standard simulation. The indications for field definition in this treatment are still based on expert's opinions. The aim of this analysis is to propose new indications for 2D fields definition based on three-dimensional simulation in a population of patients with CAP. Twenty patients with CAP consecutively treated with RT in our center were identified. Patients underwent CT-simulation in supine position. Pelvic MRI images were fused with CT-simulation images. In this way, delineation of the prostate and seminal vesicles was performed on MRI images. Clinical Target Volume definition (CTV) was performed according to EORTC guidelines simulating 4 different categories: low-risk CAP, intermediate-risk CAP, high-risk CAP without involvement of the seminal vesicles, and high-risk CAP with involvement of seminal vesicles. The Planning Target Volume (PTV) was defined by adding a margin of 10 mm to the CTV in all directions. For each patient, 8 treatment plans were calculated. In particular, for each of the 4 categories of risk, 2 treatment plans were calculated by using a cobalt source or 10 MV photons. Treatment plans were calculated using the box technique. Progressive optimization was realized with an iterative procedure by evaluating the three-dimensional dose distribution. Once the final plan was achieved (respecting the PTV constraint: D98 \> 95%), distances of the fields edges from a set of reference points were measured.

Interventions

RADIATION2D radiotherapy

Sponsors

IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
MALE
Age
18 Years to 79 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* \> 18 years * clinical T stage: cT2b, cT2c, cT3a, cT3b * informed consent * MRI of the pelvis

Exclusion criteria

* \> 79 years * prior surgery treatment for prostate cancer * prior pelvic radiotherapy * genetic syndromes of hyper-radio-sensitivity * chronic infiammatory bowel disease

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
new indications for 2D fields definitionthrough study completion, up to 10 monthsTwenty patients with prostate cancer (CAP) were identified. Pelvic MRI images were fused with CT-simulation images to delineate prostate and seminal vesicles on MRI images. Clinical Target Volume definition (CTV) was performed according to EORTC guidelines simulating 4 different categories: low-risk CAP, intermediate-risk CAP, high-risk CAP with or without involvement of the seminal vesicles. The Planning Target Volume (PTV) was defined by adding a margin of 10 mm to the CTV. For each patient, 8 treatment plans were calculated using box tecnhique: 2 treatment plans for each risk category were calculated by using a cobalt source or 10 MV photons. Progressive optimization was realized with an iterative procedure by evaluating the three-dimensional dose distribution. Once the final plan was achieved (respecting the PTV constraint: D98 \> 95%), distances of the fields edges from a set of reference points were measured.

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026