PURPOSE: To determine whether a 3-mm isotropic target margin adequately covers the prostate and seminal vesicles (SVs) during administration of an intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment fraction, assuming that daily image-guided setup is performed just before each fraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In-room computed tomographic (CT) scans were acquired immediately before and after a daily treatment fraction in 46 patients with prostate cancer. An eight-field IMRT plan was designed using the pre-fraction CT with a 3-mm margin and subsequently recalculated on the post-fraction CT. For convenience of comparison, dose plans were scaled to full course of treatment (75.6 Gy). Dose coverage was assessed on the post-treatment CT image set. RESULTS: During one treatment fraction (21.4+/-5.5 min), there were reductions in the volumes of the prostate and SVs receiving the prescribed dose (median reduction 0.1% and 1.0%, respectively, p<0.001) and in the minimum dose to 0.1 cm(3) of their volumes (median reduction 0.5 and 1.5 Gy, p<0.001). Of the 46 patients, three patients' prostates and eight patients' SVs did not maintain dose coverage above 70 Gy. Rectal filling correlated with decreased percentage-volume of SV receiving 75.6, 70, and 60 Gy (p<0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The 3-mm intrafractional margin was adequate for prostate dose coverage. However, a significant subset of patients lost SV dose coverage. The rectal volume change significantly affected SV dose coverage. For advanced-stage prostate cancers, we recommend to use larger margins or improve organ immobilization (such as with a rectal balloon) to ensure SV coverage.
PURPOSE: To determine whether a 3-mm isotropic target margin adequately covers the prostate and seminal vesicles (SVs) during administration of an intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment fraction, assuming that daily image-guided setup is performed just before each fraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In-room computed tomographic (CT) scans were acquired immediately before and after a daily treatment fraction in 46 patients with prostate cancer. An eight-field IMRT plan was designed using the pre-fraction CT with a 3-mm margin and subsequently recalculated on the post-fraction CT. For convenience of comparison, dose plans were scaled to full course of treatment (75.6 Gy). Dose coverage was assessed on the post-treatment CT image set. RESULTS: During one treatment fraction (21.4+/-5.5 min), there were reductions in the volumes of the prostate and SVs receiving the prescribed dose (median reduction 0.1% and 1.0%, respectively, p<0.001) and in the minimum dose to 0.1 cm(3) of their volumes (median reduction 0.5 and 1.5 Gy, p<0.001). Of the 46 patients, three patients' prostates and eight patients' SVs did not maintain dose coverage above 70 Gy. Rectal filling correlated with decreased percentage-volume of SV receiving 75.6, 70, and 60 Gy (p<0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The 3-mm intrafractional margin was adequate for prostate dose coverage. However, a significant subset of patients lost SV dose coverage. The rectal volume change significantly affected SV dose coverage. For advanced-stage prostate cancers, we recommend to use larger margins or improve organ immobilization (such as with a rectal balloon) to ensure SV coverage.
Authors: Daniel C Schiffner; Alexander R Gottschalk; Michael Lometti; Michele Aubin; Jean Pouliot; Joycelyn Speight; I-Chow Hsu; Katsuto Shinohara; Mack Roach Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Song Gao; Lifei Zhang; He Wang; Renaud de Crevoisier; Deborah D Kuban; Radhe Mohan; Lei Dong Journal: Med Phys Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Catherine A McBain; Ann M Henry; Jonathan Sykes; Ali Amer; Tom Marchant; Christopher M Moore; Julie Davies; Julia Stratford; Claire McCarthy; Bridget Porritt; Peter Williams; Vincent S Khoo; Pat Price Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-12-15 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jennifer C O'Daniel; Lei Dong; Lifei Zhang; Renaud de Crevoisier; He Wang; Andrew K Lee; Rex Cheung; Susan L Tucker; Rajat J Kudchadker; Mark D Bonnen; James D Cox; Radhe Mohan; Deborah A Kuban Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Fabio L B Cury; George Shenouda; Luis Souhami; Marie Duclos; Sergio L Faria; Marc David; Frank Verhaegen; Robert Corns; Tony Falco Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-10-23 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Twyla R Willoughby; Patrick A Kupelian; Jean Pouliot; Katsuto Shinohara; Michelle Aubin; Mack Roach; Lisa L Skrumeda; James M Balter; Dale W Litzenberg; Scott W Hadley; John T Wei; Howard M Sandler Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-06-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Renaud de Crevoisier; Adam D Melancon; Deborah A Kuban; Andrew K Lee; Rex M Cheung; Susan L Tucker; Rajat J Kudchadker; Wayne D Newhauser; Lifei Zhang; Radhe Mohan; Lei Dong Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-06-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: U Titt; N Sahoo; X Ding; Y Zheng; W D Newhauser; X R Zhu; J C Polf; M T Gillin; R Mohan Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2008-07-31 Impact factor: 3.609