BACKGROUND: As known from the literature, prostate motion depends on different bladder and/or rectum fillings. The aim of this study was to analyze the influence of a rectum balloon catheter, used as an internal immobilization device, on prostate and rectum motion during the treatment course. Moreover we have analyzed if the balloon enables an increase of the distance between the prostate and the posterior rectum wall. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten patients with localized prostate cancer (T1 to T3) underwent computed tomographic examinations with and without rectal balloon (filled with 40 ml air) at 3 times during treatment course (at the start, middle and end of treatment). Edges of prostate, rectum and bladder were measured in relation to bony reference structures and compared for both examination series (with and without balloon). RESULTS: An increase of the distance between the prostate and the posterior rectal wall of 8 mm was observed at the base of the prostate when using the rectum balloon (Figures 1a,b and 2). Moreover prostate motion in the ventrodorsal direction > or = 4 mm (1 SD) was reduced from 6/10 patients (60%) to 1/10 patients (10%) using the rectal balloon (Table 3, Figure 3). In general, deviations in the latero-lateral and cranio-caudal directions were less (mean < or = 2 mm, 1 SD), no difference between both examination series (with and without balloon) was observed. CONCLUSION: Rectal balloon catheter offers a possibility to reduce prostate motion and rectum filling variations during treatment course. In addition it enables an increase in the distance between prostate and posterior rectal wall, which could enable an improved protection of the posterior rectal wall.
BACKGROUND: As known from the literature, prostate motion depends on different bladder and/or rectum fillings. The aim of this study was to analyze the influence of a rectum balloon catheter, used as an internal immobilization device, on prostate and rectum motion during the treatment course. Moreover we have analyzed if the balloon enables an increase of the distance between the prostate and the posterior rectum wall. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten patients with localized prostate cancer (T1 to T3) underwent computed tomographic examinations with and without rectal balloon (filled with 40 ml air) at 3 times during treatment course (at the start, middle and end of treatment). Edges of prostate, rectum and bladder were measured in relation to bony reference structures and compared for both examination series (with and without balloon). RESULTS: An increase of the distance between the prostate and the posterior rectal wall of 8 mm was observed at the base of the prostate when using the rectum balloon (Figures 1a,b and 2). Moreover prostate motion in the ventrodorsal direction > or = 4 mm (1 SD) was reduced from 6/10 patients (60%) to 1/10 patients (10%) using the rectal balloon (Table 3, Figure 3). In general, deviations in the latero-lateral and cranio-caudal directions were less (mean < or = 2 mm, 1 SD), no difference between both examination series (with and without balloon) was observed. CONCLUSION: Rectal balloon catheter offers a possibility to reduce prostate motion and rectum filling variations during treatment course. In addition it enables an increase in the distance between prostate and posterior rectal wall, which could enable an improved protection of the posterior rectal wall.
Authors: E Melian; G S Mageras; Z Fuks; S A Leibel; A Niehaus; H Lorant; M Zelefsky; B Baldwin; G J Kutcher Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1997-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J M Balter; H M Sandler; K Lam; R L Bree; A S Lichter; R K ten Haken Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1995-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: C J Beard; P Kijewski; M Bussière; R Gelman; D Gladstone; K Shaffer; M Plunkett; P Castello; C N Coleman Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1996-01-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: G S Mageras; G J Kutcher; S A Leibel; M J Zelefsky; E Melian; R Mohan; Z Fuks Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1996-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J C Roeske; J D Forman; C F Mesina; T He; C A Pelizzari; E Fontenla; S Vijayakumar; G T Chen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1995-12-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Gregor Goldner; Hans Geinitz; Stefan Wachter; Gerd Becker; Frank Zimmermann; Natascha Wachter-Gerstner; Stefan Glocker; Regina Pötzi; Andre Wambersie; Michael Bamberg; Michael Molls; Horst Feldmann; Richard Pötter Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Andrea Hille; Markus K A Herrmann; Tereza Kertesz; Hans Christiansen; Robert M Hermann; Olivier Pradier; Heinz Schmidberger; Clemens-F Hess Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2008-12-24 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Gregor Goldner; Valentin Bombosch; Hans Geinitz; Gerd Becker; Stefan Wachter; Stefan Glocker; Frank Zimmermann; Natascha Wachter-Gerstner; Andrea Schrott; Michael Bamberg; Michael Molls; Horst Feldmann; Richard Pötter Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2009-02-25 Impact factor: 3.621