The use of a rectal balloon filled with 60 ml air led to a significantly decreased proportion of the irradiated rectal wall for all CTVs. This volume filled in rectal balloons is therefore recommended for use. In case of irradiation of the prostate without the seminal vesicles, the use of a rectal balloon should be considered carefully concerning the patients' imaginable discomfort using a rectal balloon and a questionable advantage concerning the estimated risk for chronic toxicity.

Reduction of the CTV to the prostate only, or to the prostate + proximal seminal vesicles led to significant rectal and bladder dose sparing compared to irradiation of the prostate + entire seminal vesicles. In patients with a higher risk for seminal vesicles involvement, irradiation of the prostate + proximal seminal vesicles should be preferred. In case of a need for irradiation of the entire seminal vesicles, patients should be informed about a higher risk for chronic rectal toxicity and, possibly, for bladder complications.

The purpose of the current study was to quantitatively assess differences between irradiation techniques on normal tissue exposure in different clinical target volumes (CTVs) in irradiation of prostate cancer. 14 patients with prostate cancer undergoing external beam radiotherapy were investigated. The prostate and prostate + proximal/entire seminal vesicles were delineated as CTVs. A three-field and two different four-field plans were generated and compared concerning rectum, bladder and femoral head dose-volume histograms (DVHs). The exposure of the rectum exposed to 40-60 Gy was significantly lower for all CTVs with the three-field technique compared with both four-field techniques. The exposure of the rectum to 70 Gy was significantly lower for all CTVs with the weighted four-field technique compared with the unweighted four-field and three-field techniques. The weighted four-field technique was worst in bladder dose sparing for the three CTVs. Comparing the three-field and the unweighted four-field technique for irradiation of the prostate and prostate + entire seminal vesicles, no technique provided a clear advantage or disadvantage in bladder dose sparing. For irradiation of the prostate + proximal seminal vesicles the unweighted four-field technique provided the best bladder dose sparing. Concerning the exposure of the femoral heads, the three-field technique was significantly worse for the three CTVs compared with both four-field techniques. No difference was found between the unweighted and the weighted four-field techniques. In conclusion, none of the studied techniques consistently proved superior in different CTVs in prostate cancer irradiation with respect to sparing all organs at risk. The absolute differences between the three techniques were small and the clinical relevance of these findings is uncertain.