@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{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}
}