Radiation Oncology (Jul 2024)

Adaptive radiotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer: a retrospective audit of two bladder filling protocols

  • Diana Nohemi Briceño Guel,
  • Nicola Laverick,
  • Linda MacLaren,
  • Nicholas MacLeod,
  • Martin Glegg,
  • Gillian Lamb,
  • Peter Houston,
  • Ross Carruthers,
  • Laura Grocutt,
  • Ronan M. Valentine

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-024-02484-9
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 19, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Radical radiotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is challenging due to large variations in bladder shape, size and volume during treatment, with drinking protocols often employed to mitigate geometric uncertainties. Utilising adaptive radiotherapy together with CBCT imaging to select a treatment plan that best fits the bladder target and reduce normal tissue irradiation is an attractive option to compensate for anatomical changes. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare a bladder empty (BE) protocol to a bladder filling (BF) protocol with regards to variations in target volumes, plan of the day (PoD) selection and plan dosimetry throughout treatment. Methods Forty patients were included in the study; twenty were treated with a BE protocol and twenty with a BF protocol to a total prescribed dose of 55 Gy in 20 fractions. Small, medium and large bladder plans were generated using three different CTV to PTV margins. Bladder (CTV) volumes were delineated on planning CTs and online pre-treatment CBCTs. Differences in CTV volumes throughout treatment, plan selection, PTV volumes and resulting dose metrics were compared for both protocols. Results Mean bladder volume differed significantly on both the planning CTs and online pre-treatment CBCTs between the protocols (p < 0.05). Significant differences in bladder volumes were observed between the planning CT and pre-treatment CBCTs for BF (p < 0.05) but not for BE (p = 0.11). Both protocols saw a significant decrease in bladder volume between first and final treatment fractions (p < 0.05). Medium plans were preferentially selected for BE whilst when using the BF protocol the small plan was chosen most frequently. With no significant change to PTV coverage between the protocols, the volume of body receiving 25.0–45.8 Gy was found to be significantly smaller for BE patients (p < 0.05). Conclusions This work provides evidence in favour of a BE protocol compared to a BF protocol for radical radiotherapy for MIBC. The smaller treatment volumes observed in the BE protocol led to reduced OAR and total body doses and were also observed to be more consistent throughout the treatment course. These results highlight improvements in dosimetry for patients who undergo a BE protocol for MIBC.

Keywords