Work

MR-Linac–Based SBRT for Prostate Cancer: Dosimetric Benefits for Urethral Sparing Compared to VMAT and Tomotherapy

Year: 2026

Type: article

Abstract: Background: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer delivers high doses in few fractions but poses challenges in sparing adjacent organs at risk (OARs), particularly the intra-prostate urethra, bladder, rectum and penile bulb. Magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) using MR-Linac offers superior soft-tissue visualization and daily adaptive planning, potentially reducing OAR dose while maintaining target coverage. This study aimed to compare dose–volume parameters among MR-Linac (ML), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and Tomotherapy (HT) plans for prostate SBRT. Methods: Thirty patients with localized prostate cancer were retrospectively analyzed. For each patient, three plans were generated: ML, VMAT and HT, using identical prescription and planning objectives. Dose–volume histogram (DVH) metrics were evaluated for clinical target volume (CTV), planning target volume (PTV), and OARs. Statistical comparisons were performed using non-parametric Friedman’s Test with post hoc Bonferroni test, with significance set at a p < 0.05. Results: CTV coverage was comparable across all modalities. ML achieved significantly higher PTV Dmin and near-maximum doses compared to VMAT and HT. Notably, ML provided substantial urethral sparing, reducing Dmax and Dmean by approximately 3.3 Gy compared to both VMAT and HT (p < 0.001). Rectal dose metrics were also lower with ML, while bladder and penile bulb doses showed minor increases (<3.5 Gy), considered clinically negligible. Femoral head doses were reduced in ML plans. Conclusions: MR-Linac planning for prostate SBRT offers meaningful dosimetric advantages, particularly in intra-prostate urethra urethral dose reduction, without compromising target coverage. These findings support incorporating MR-guided adaptive workflows into SBRT protocols to enhance OAR protection and potentially reduce treatment-related toxicity.

Source: Cancers

DOI: 10.3390/cancers18040568