Chris said...
Which equipment specifically, and what kind of testing should we be requesting?
Ask when they got their equipment (last 10 years would be good). It should also be IMRT rather than 3D-CRT, imho. I like VMAT (arc therapy) because it is very fast (faster treatment minimizes the opportunity for prostate bed motion during treatment). I was treated with Truebeam with RapidArc, but there are many brands (e.g., Vero, Elekta Axesse). On the other hand, Tomotherapy is a great choice because it continuously monitors the target position. I think image guidance is very important in adjuvant RT, so that placement of fiducials or Calypso transponders in the prostate bed can help with accuracy. And cone beam CT imaging at the start of each treatment will help increase accuracy and minimize toxicity. But even the fanciest new machine is of lesser importance to RO experience and care in planning.
You should also be looking at a prescript
ion dose of around 70 Gy (at 1.8-2.0 Gy/treatment). How wide they treat can vary based on individual anatomy and assessment of risk. The wider the area they treat, the higher the probability that they get it all, but the higher the toxicity risk.
Fortunately, whole pelvic radiation can be avoided because of the very extensive ePLND.
I understand your concern based on PSA that it has already metastasized, and that is certainly possible, but the ePLND and the T3a may suggest that it is still local. Have you looked at a nomogram? The Stephenson nomogram is sometimes used to predict the probability that adjuvant RT will be successful, but it is correct only about
70% of the time. Of course, it does not account for how extensive the ePLND was in your case. Here it is, FWIW:
Stephenson nomogram- Allen