BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
British Journal of Radiology (2004) 77, 129-136
© 2004 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/37893924
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kao, J
Right arrow Articles by Jani, A B
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kao, J
Right arrow Articles by Jani, A B

Full Paper

Sparing of the penile bulb and proximal penile structures with intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer

J Kao, MD1, J Turian, MS1, A Meyers, BS1, R J Hamilton, PhD2, B Smith, MSEE1, S Vijayakumar, MD3 and A B Jani, MD, MSEE1

1 University of Chicago/University of Illinois at Chicago Department of Radiation Oncology, 5758 S. Maryland Avenue, MC 9006, Chicago, IL 60637, 2 University of Arizona, Department of Radiation Oncology, 1501 N. Campbell Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85724 and 3 University of California at Davis, Department of Radiation Oncology, 4501 X Street G126, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA

Correspondence: Dr Ashesh Jani

Quality of life is an important consideration in the treatment of early prostate cancer. Laboratory and clinical data suggest that higher radiation doses delivered to the bulb of penis and proximal penile structures correlates with higher rates of post-radiation impotence. The goal of this investigation was to determine if intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) spares dose to the penile bulb while maintaining coverage of the prostate. 10 consecutive patients with clinically organ confined prostate cancer were planned with 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) or IMRT to give a dose of 74 Gy without specifically constraining the plans to spare the penile bulb. All 10 patients were ultimately treated with IMRT. Dose–volume histograms were evaluated and the doses to prostate, rectum, bladder and penile bulb were compared. IMRT reduced the mean penile bulb doses compared with 3D-CRT (33.2 Gy vs 48.9 Gy, p<0.001), the percentage of penile bulb receiving over 40 Gy (37.7% vs 67.2%, p<0.001) and the dose received by >95% of penile bulb (5.3 Gy vs 11.7 Gy, p=0.003). Maximum penile bulb doses were higher with IMRT (81.2 Gy vs 73.1 Gy, p<0.001) although the volume of this high dose region was small. Both methods resulted in similar coverage of the prostate. The volume of rectum receiving 70 Gy was significantly reduced with IMRT (18.4% vs 21.9%, p=0.003) but the volumes of bladder receiving 70 Gy were similar (p=0.3). IMRT may potentially reduce long term sexual morbidity by reducing the dose to the majority of the penile bulb.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
BJR Review of the Year - 2004
Br. J. Radiol., March 1, 2005; 78(927): 181 - 185.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2004 by the British Institute of Radiology.