@article{RichterPolatLawrenzetal.2016,
  author    = {Richter, Anne and Polat, B{\"u}lent and Lawrenz, Ingulf and Weick, Stefan and Sauer, Otto and Flentje, Michael and Mantel, Frederick},
  title     = {Initial results for patient setup verification using transperineal ultrasound and cone beam CT in external beam radiation therapy of prostate cancer},
  series = {Radiation Oncology},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Radiation Oncology},
  number    = {147},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13014-016-0722-7},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-147677},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Evaluation of set up error detection by a transperineal ultrasound in comparison with a cone beam CT (CBCT) based system in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) of prostate cancer. Methods: Setup verification was performed with transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) and CBCT for 10 patients treated with EBRT for prostate cancer. In total, 150 ultrasound and CBCT scans were acquired in rapid succession and analyzed for setup errors. The deviation between setup errors of the two modalities was evaluated separately for each dimension. Results: A moderate correlation in lateral, vertical and longitudinal direction was observed comparing the setup errors. Mean differences between TPUS and CBCT were (-2.7 ± 2.3) mm, (3.0 ± 2.4) mm and (3.2 ± 2.7) mm in lateral, vertical and longitudinal direction, respectively. The mean Euclidean difference between TPUS and CBCT was (6.0 ± 3.1) mm. Differences up to 19.2 mm were observed between the two imaging modalities. Discrepancies between TPUS and CBCT of at least 5 mm occurred in 58 \% of monitored treatment sessions. Conclusion: Setup differences between TPUS and CBCT are 6 mm on average. Although the correlation of the setup errors determined by the two different image modalities is rather week, the combination of setup verification by CBCT and intrafraction motion monitoring by TPUS imaging can use the benefits of both imaging modalities.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Lawrenz2020,
  author    = {Lawrenz, Ingulf},
  title     = {Die moderat hypofraktionierte Bestrahlung des lokalisierten Prostatakarzinoms : Ergebnisse f{\"u}r das tumorspezifische und klinische Outcome nach moderater Hypofraktionerung in intensit{\"a}tsmodulierter Technik},
  doi       = {10.25972/OPUS-19960},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-199605},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Die m{\"a}ßig hypofraktionierte Strahlentherapie des lokalisierten Prostatakarzinoms Wir haben retrospektiv die ersten 150 konsekutiven Patienten analysiert, die mit einer prim{\"a}ren Strahlentherapie in IMRT bei lokalisiertem Prostatakrebs behandelt wurden. Alle Patienten hatten ein histologisch gesichertes Prostatakarzinom und wurden von Urologen zur kurativen Bestrahlung {\"u}berwiesen. Nach der CT-basierter Planung wurden alle Patienten mit einer intensit{\"a}tsmodulierten Strahlenthera (IMRT) unter Verwendung der SIB-Technik (Simultan Integrierter Boost) behandelt. Die applizierten Dosen betrugen 74 Gy (n = 41) und 76,2 Gy (n = 109) in 32 und 33 Fraktionen. Die Behandlung von Beckenlymphknoten (46 Gy) wurde bei 41 Hochrisikopatienten durchgef{\"u}hrt. Die Behandlung wurde unter Verwendung einer integrierten Cone-Beam-CT (IGRT) durchgef{\"u}hrt. Die Toxizit{\"a}t wurde mit CTCAE 3.0 bewertet. Das biochemische Rezidiv wurde gem{\"a}ß der Phoenix-Definition von Nadir + 2 ng / ml definiert. Wir analysierten die gastrointestinale Toxizit{\"a}t (GI), die urogenitale Toxizit{\"a}t (GU) und das Freedom From Biochemichal Failure (FFBF). Ergebnisse: Das mediane Follow-Up der Patienten betrug 50 Monate. Mehr als 80\% der Patienten waren w{\"a}hrend der Nachbeobachtung frei von gastrointestinaler Toxizit{\"a}t. Es gab keinen Trend zu erh{\"o}hten GI-Toxizit{\"a}tsraten im zeitlichen Verlauf. Bei 85\% unserer Patienten wurde innerhalb von 6 Wochen nach der Behandlung eine akute Urogenitaltoxizit{\"a}t vom Grad 1-2 beobachtet. Die meisten Patienten erholten sich von einer akuten GU-Toxizit{\"a}t. Es gab einen kontinuierlichen Anstieg des GU-Toxizit{\"a}tsgrades ≥2 mit <10\% nach 6 bis 12 Monaten auf 22,4\% nach 60 Monaten. Die GU-Toxizit{\"a}t 3. Grades lag w{\"a}hrend der Nachuntersuchung unter 5\%. FFBF betrug 82\% f{\"u}r alle Patienten. Nach Risikogruppen betrug FFBF 88\%, 80\% und 78\% f{\"u}r das niedrige, mittlere und hohe Risiko. Schlussfolgerung: Nach moderat hypofraktionierter Strahlentherapie des Prostatakarzinoms beobachteten wir niedrige GI-Toxizit{\"a}tsraten sowie ein g{\"u}nstiges FFBF. Die GU-Toxizit{\"a}tsraten lagen innerhalb der international berichteten Ergebnisse bei gleichwertiger Behandlung. Die konformale IMRT-Planung und die genaue IGRT haben m{\"o}glicherweise zu diesen Ergebnissen beigetragen.},
  subject      = {Prostatakrebs},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{TamihardjaSchortmannLawrenzetal.2021,
  author    = {Tamihardja, J{\"o}rg and Schortmann, Max and Lawrenz, Ingulf and Weick, Stefan and Bratengeier, Klaus and Flentje, Michael and Guckenberger, Matthias and Polat, B{\"u}lent},
  title     = {Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer: updated long-term outcome and toxicity analysis},
  series = {Strahlentherapie und Onkologie},
  volume    = {197},
  journal   = {Strahlentherapie und Onkologie},
  issn      = {0179-7158},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00066-020-01678-w},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-232509},
  pages     = {124-132},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Purpose Evaluation of long-term outcome and toxicity of moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with simultaneous integrated boost treatment planning and cone beam CT-based image guidance for localized prostate cancer. Methods Between 2005 and 2015, 346 consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer received primary radiotherapy using cone beam CT-based image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (IG-VMAT) with a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB). Total doses of 73.9 Gy (n = 44) and 76.2 Gy (n = 302) to the high-dose PTV were delivered in 32 and 33 fractions, respectively. The low-dose PTV received a dose (D95) of 60.06 Gy in single doses of 1.82 Gy. The pelvic lymph nodes were treated in 91 high-risk patients to 45.5 Gy (D95). Results Median follow-up was 61.8 months. The 5‑year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) was 85.4\% for all patients and 93.3, 87.4, and 79.4\% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease, respectively. The 5‑year prostate cancer-specific survival (PSS) was 94.8\% for all patients and 98.7, 98.9, 89.3\% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease, respectively. The 5‑year and 10-year overall survival rates were 83.8 and 66.3\% and the 5‑year and 10-year freedom from distant metastasis rates were 92.2 and 88.0\%, respectively. Cumulative 5‑year late GU toxicity and late GI toxicity grade ≥2 was observed in 26.3 and 12.1\% of the patients, respectively. Cumulative 5‑year late grade 3 GU/GI toxicity occurred in 4.0/1.2\%. Conclusion Moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy using SIB treatment planning and cone beam CT image guidance resulted in high biochemical control and survival with low rates of late toxicity.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{TamihardjaLawrenzLutyjetal.2022,
  author    = {Tamihardja, J{\"o}rg and Lawrenz, Ingulf and Lutyj, Paul and Weick, Stefan and Guckenberger, Matthias and Polat, B{\"u}lent and Flentje, Michael},
  title     = {Propensity score-matched analysis comparing dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus external beam radiation therapy plus high-dose-rate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer},
  series = {Strahlentherapie und Onkologie},
  volume    = {198},
  journal   = {Strahlentherapie und Onkologie},
  number    = {8},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00066-022-01953-y},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-325055},
  pages     = {735-743},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Purpose Dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and EBRT + high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) boost are guideline-recommended treatment options for localized prostate cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare long-term outcome and toxicity of dose-escalated EBRT versus EBRT + HDR-BT boost. Methods From 2002 to 2019, 744 consecutive patients received either EBRT or EBRT + HDR-BT boost, of whom 516 patients were propensity score matched. Median follow-up was 95.3 months. Cone beam CT image-guided EBRT consisted of 33 fractions of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with simultaneous integrated boost up to 76.23 Gy (D\(_{Mean}\)). Combined treatment was delivered as 46 Gy (D\(_{Mean}\)) EBRT, followed by two fractions HDR-BT boost with 9 Gy (D\(_{90\\%}\)). Propensity score matching was applied before analysis of the primary endpoint, estimated 10-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS), and the secondary endpoints metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS). Prognostic parameters were analyzed by Cox proportional hazard modelling. Genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity evaluation used the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (v5.0). Results The estimated 10-year bRFS was 82.0\% vs. 76.4\% (p = 0.075) for EBRT alone versus combined treatment, respectively. The estimated 10-year MFS was 82.9\% vs. 87.0\% (p = 0.195) and the 10-year OS was 65.7\% vs. 68.9\% (p = 0.303), respectively. Cumulative 5‑year late GU ≥ grade 2 toxicities were seen in 23.6\% vs. 19.2\% (p = 0.086) and 5‑year late GI ≥ grade 2 toxicities in 11.1\% vs. 5.0\% of the patients (p = 0.002); cumulative 5‑year late grade 3 GU toxicity occurred in 4.2\% vs. 3.6\% (p = 0.401) and GI toxicity in 1.0\% vs. 0.3\% (p = 0.249), respectively. Conclusion Both treatment groups showed excellent long-term outcomes with low rates of severe toxicity.},
  language  = {en}
}