PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of intraprostatic markers in the treatment verification of prostate cancer radiotherapy. Specific aims were: to compare the effectiveness of offline correction protocols, either using gold markers or bony anatomy; to estimate the potential benefit of online correction protocol's using gold markers; to determine the presence and effect of intrafraction motion. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty patients with three gold markers inserted had pretreatment and posttreatment images acquired and were treated using an offline correction protocol and gold markers. Retrospectively, an offline protocol was applied using bony anatomy and an online protocol using gold markers. RESULTS: The systematic errors were reduced from 1.3, 1.9, and 2.5 mm to 1.1, 1.1, and 1.5 mm in the right-left (RL), superoinferior (SI), and anteroposterior (AP) directions, respectively, using the offline correction protocol and gold markers instead of bony anatomy. The subsequent decrease in margins was 1.7, 3.3, and 4 mm in the RL, SI, and AP directions, respectively. An offline correction protocol combined with an online correction protocol in the first four fractions reduced random errors further to 0.9, 1.1, and 1.0 mm in the RL, SI, and AP directions, respectively. A daily online protocol reduced all errors to <1 mm. Intrafraction motion had greater impact on the effectiveness of the online protocol than the offline protocols. CONCLUSIONS: An offline protocol using gold markers is effective in reducing the systematic error. The value of online protocols is reduced by intrafraction motion.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of intraprostatic markers in the treatment verification of prostate cancer radiotherapy. Specific aims were: to compare the effectiveness of offline correction protocols, either using gold markers or bony anatomy; to estimate the potential benefit of online correction protocol's using gold markers; to determine the presence and effect of intrafraction motion. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty patients with three gold markers inserted had pretreatment and posttreatment images acquired and were treated using an offline correction protocol and gold markers. Retrospectively, an offline protocol was applied using bony anatomy and an online protocol using gold markers. RESULTS: The systematic errors were reduced from 1.3, 1.9, and 2.5 mm to 1.1, 1.1, and 1.5 mm in the right-left (RL), superoinferior (SI), and anteroposterior (AP) directions, respectively, using the offline correction protocol and gold markers instead of bony anatomy. The subsequent decrease in margins was 1.7, 3.3, and 4 mm in the RL, SI, and AP directions, respectively. An offline correction protocol combined with an online correction protocol in the first four fractions reduced random errors further to 0.9, 1.1, and 1.0 mm in the RL, SI, and AP directions, respectively. A daily online protocol reduced all errors to <1 mm. Intrafraction motion had greater impact on the effectiveness of the online protocol than the offline protocols. CONCLUSIONS: An offline protocol using gold markers is effective in reducing the systematic error. The value of online protocols is reduced by intrafraction motion.
Authors: Per Munck af Rosenschöld; Neil B Desai; Jung Hun Oh; Aditya Apte; Margie Hunt; Abraham Kalikstein; James Mechalakos; Laura Happersett; Joseph O Deasy; Michael J Zelefsky Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Colin I Tang; Perakaa Sethukavalan; Patrick Cheung; Gerard Morton; Geordi Pang; D Andrew Loblaw Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Isabel Syndikus; Rachel C Morgan; Matthew R Sydes; John D Graham; David P Dearnaley Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 7.038