Robust treatment planning of dose painting for prostate cancer based on ADC-to-Gleason score mappings – what is the potential to increase the tumor control probability?

References

• Möller TR, Brorsson B, Ceberg J, et al. A prospective survey of radiotherapy practice 2001 in Sweden. Acta Oncol. 2003;42(5–6):387–410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widmark A, Klepp O, Solberg A, et al. Endocrine treatment, with or without radiotherapy, in locally advanced prostate cancer (SPCG-7/SFUO-3): an open randomised phase III trial. Lancet. 2009;373(9660):301–308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollack A, Zagars GK, Starkschall G, et al. Prostate cancer radiation dose response: results of the MD Anderson phase III randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53(5):1097–1105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zietman A, DeSilvio M, Slater J, et al. Comparison of conventional-dose vs high-dose conformal radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. JAMA. 2005;294(10):1233–1239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peeters STH, Heemsbergen WD, Koper PCM, et al. Dose-response in radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: results of the dutch multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing 68 Gy of radiotherapy with 78 Gy. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(13):1990–1996.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dearnaley DP, Sydes MR, Graham JD, et al. Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(6):475–487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zelefsky MJ, Pei X, Chou JF, et al. Dose escalation for prostate cancer radiotherapy: predictors of long-term biochemical tumor control and distant metastases–free survival outcomes. Euro Urol. 2011;60(6):1133–1139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris WJ, Tyldesley S, Rodda S, et al. Androgen suppression combined with elective nodal and dose escalated radiation therapy (the ASCENDE-RT Trial): an analysis of survival endpoints for a randomized trial comparing a low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost to a dose-escalated external beam boost for high- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;98(2):275–285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arrayeh E, Westphalen AC, Kurhanewicz J, et al. Does local recurrence of prostate cancer after radiation therapy occur at the site of primary tumor? Results of a longitudinal MRI and MRSI study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(5):e787–e793.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckendorf V, Guerif S, Le Prisé E, et al. 70 Gy versus 80 Gy in localized prostate cancer: 5-year results of GETUG 06 randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80(4):1056–1063.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ling CC, Humm J, Larson S, et al. Towards multidimensional radiotherapy (MD-CRT): biological imaging and biological conformality. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics. 2000;47(3):551–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):428–435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magi-Galluzzi C, Montironi R, Epstein JI. Contemporary gleason grading and novel grade groups in clinical practice. Curr Opin Urol. 2016;26(5):488–492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han M, Partin AW, Zahurak M, et al. Biochemical (prostate specific antigen) recurrence probability following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003;169(2):517–523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Robinson D, et al. Evaluation of the 2015 Gleason grade groups in a nationwide population-based cohort. Eur Urol. 2016;69(6):1135–1141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghobadi G, de Jong J, Hollmann BG, et al. Histopathology-derived modeling of prostate cancer tumor control probability: implications for the dose to the tumor and the gland. Radiothe Oncol. 2016;119(1):97–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology. 2011;258(2):488–495.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient values in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate: comparison between normal and malignant prostatic tissues and correlation with histologic grade. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(3):720–726.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shigemura K, Yamanaka N, Yamashita M. Can diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging predict a high gleason score of prostate cancer? Korean J Urol. 2013;54(4):234.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• deSouza NM, Riches SF, VanAs NJ, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol. 2008;63(7):774–782.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bittencourt LK, Barentsz JO, de Miranda LCD, et al. Prostate MRI: diffusion-weighted imaging at 1.5T correlates better with prostatectomy Gleason grades than TRUS-guided biopsies in peripheral zone tumours. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(2):468–475.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazaheri Y, Hricak H, Fine SW, et al. Prostate tumor volume measurement with combined T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted MR: correlation with pathologic tumor volume 1. Radiology. 2009;252(2):449–457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boesen L, Chabanova E, Løgager V, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient ratio correlates significantly with prostate cancer gleason score at final pathology: ADC ratio Correlates with Gleason Score. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42(2):446–453.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grönlund E, Johansson S, Nyholm T, et al. Dose painting of prostate cancer based on Gleason score correlations with apparent diffusion coefficients. Acta Oncol. 2018;57(5):574–581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogelius IR, Bentzen SM. Meta-analysis of the Alpha/Beta ratio for prostate cancer in the presence of an overall time factor: bad news, good news, or no news? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85(1):89–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casares-Magaz O, van der Heide UA, Rørvik J, et al. A tumour control probability model for radiotherapy of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-based apparent diffusion coefficient maps. Radiother Oncol. 2016;119(1):111–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fredriksson A, Forsgren A, Hårdemark B. Minimax optimization for handling range and setup uncertainties in proton therapy: minimax optimization for handling uncertainties in proton therapy. Med Phys. 2011;38(3):1672–1684.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unkelbach J, Alber M, Bangert M, et al. Robust radiotherapy planning. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(22):22TR02.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotte ANTJ, Hofman P, Lagendijk JJW, et al. Intrafraction motion of the prostate during external-beam radiation therapy: analysis of 427 patients with implanted fiducial markers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69(2):419–425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monninkhof EM, van Loon JWL, van Vulpen M, et al. Standard whole prostate gland radiotherapy with and without lesion boost in prostate cancer: toxicity in the FLAME randomized controlled trial. Radiother Oncol. 2018;127(1):74–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lips IM, van der Heide UA, Haustermans K, et al. Single blind randomized phase III trial to investigate the benefit of a focal lesion ablative microboost in prostate cancer (FLAME-trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2011;12:255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borren A, Groenendaal G, Moman MR, et al. Accurate prostate tumour detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: dependence on histological properties. Acta Oncologica. 2014;53(1):88–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterpin E, Differding S, Janssens G, et al. Generation of prescriptions robust against geometric uncertainties in dose painting by numbers. Acta Oncol. 2015;54(2):253–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witte MG, Shakirin G, Houweling A, et al. Dealing with geometric uncertainties in dose painting by numbers: introducing the ΔVH1This work was supported by Dutch Cancer Society grant 2007-3895.1. Radiother Oncol. 2011;100(3):402–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witte MG, J van der G, Schneider C, et al. IMRT optimization including random and systematic geometric errors based on the expectation of TCP and NTCP. Med Phys. 2007;34(9):3544–3555.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar