Can We Advance Proton Therapy for Prostate? Considering Alternative Beam Angles and Relative Biological Effectiveness Variations When Comparing Against Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: For prostate treatments, robust evidence regarding the superiority of either intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or proton therapy is currently lacking. In this study we investigated the circumstances under which proton therapy should be expected to outperform IMRT, particularly the proton beam orientations and relative biological effectiveness (RBE) assumptions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 8 patients, 4 treatment planning strategies were considered: (A) IMRT; (B) passively scattered standard bilateral (SB) proton beams; (C) passively scattered anterior oblique (AO) proton beams, and (D) AO intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT). For modalities (B)-(D) the dose and linear energy transfer (LET) distributions were simulated using the TOPAS Monte Carlo platform and RBE was calculated according to 3 different models. RESULTS: Assuming a fixed RBE of 1.1, our implementation of IMRT outperformed SB proton therapy across most normal tissue metrics. For the scattered AO proton plans, application of the variable RBE models resulted in substantial hotspots in rectal RBE weighted dose. For AO IMPT, it was typically not possible to find a plan that simultaneously met the tumor and rectal constraints for both fixed and variable RBE models. CONCLUSION: If either a fixed RBE of 1.1 or a variable RBE model could be validated in vivo, then it would always be possible to use AO IMPT to dose-boost the prostate and improve normal tissue sparing relative to IMRT. For a cohort without rectum spacer gels, this study (1) underlines the importance of resolving the question of proton RBE within the framework of an IMRT versus proton debate for the prostate and (2) highlights that without further LET/RBE model validation, great care must be taken if AO proton fields are to be considered for prostate treatments.

Efficiency assessment of shock wave therapy in patients with pelvic pain employing harmonic analysis of penile bioimpedance.

In searching for novel objective methods to diagnosticate pelvic pain and assess efficiency of analgesic therapy, 37 male patients were examined prior to and after the course of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (5-10 sessions) with the waves directed to projections of prostate and/or crura and shaft of the penis. The repetition rate of mechanical pulses was 3-5 Hz. The range of energy pulse density was 0.09-0.45 mJ/mm(2). The overall number of pulses in a session was 1500-3000 in any treated zone with total energy smaller than 60 J. The applicator was relocated every other series of 300-500 pulses. Effect of the shock wave therapy was assessed according to subjective symptomatic scales: International Prostate Symptom Score, International Index of Erectile Function, Quality of Life, and nociceptive Visual Analog Scale. The objective assessment of shock wave therapy was performed with harmonic analysis of penile bioimpedance variability, which quantitatively evaluated the low-frequency rhythmic and asynchronous activities at rest as well as the total pulsatile activity of the penis. The magnitude of spectrum components of bioimpedance variations was assessed with a novel parameter, the effective impedance. The spectral parameters were measured in 16 patients prior to and after the treatment course. The corresponding control values were measured in the group of healthy patients. Prior to the shock wave therapy course, all spectrum parameters of penile bioimpedance significantly differed from the control (p<0.05). After this course, low-frequency rhythmic and the total pulsatile activity decreased to normal, while asynchronous activity remained significantly different from the normal. The novel objective physiological criteria of pelvic pain diagnostics and efficiency of its treatment reflecting the regional features of circulation and neural activity corresponded to the clinical symptom scaling prior to and after the shock wave course, and on the whole, these criteria corroborated improvement of the patient state after this therapy.