PURPOSE: To quantify adequate anisotropic clinical target volume (CTV)-to-planning target volume (PTV) margins for three different setup strategies used during prostate irradiation: (1) no setup corrections, (2) on-line corrections determined from bony anatomy, and (3) on-line corrections determined from gold markers. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Three radiation oncologists independently delineated the CTV on computed tomography images of 30 prostate cancer patients. Eight repeat scans were acquired to allow simulation of the delivered dose distributions in changing geometry. Different registration approaches were taken to mimic the different setup strategies. A surface model-based deformable image registration system was used to warp the delivered dose distributions back to the dose in the planning computed tomography scan. On the basis of the geometric extent of the underdosed areas, a set of anisotropic margins was derived to ensure a minimal dose to the CTV of 95% for 90% of the patients. RESULTS: Without setup correction, margins of approximately 11 mm for the corpus of the prostate and 15 mm for the seminal vesicles were required. These margins could be reduced to 8 and 13 mm when aligning the patient to the bony anatomy and to 3 and 8 mm aligning the patient to implanted gold markers. A larger margin at the apex was required to account for the significant observer variability and steep dose gradients at this location (11 mm using skin marker registration, 9 mm using bony anatomy registration, and 6 mm using gold marker registration). CONCLUSIONS: Novel voxel tracking techniques have enabled us to calculate accumulated dose distributions and design accurate three-dimensional CTV-to-PTV margins for prostate irradiation.
PURPOSE: To quantify adequate anisotropic clinical target volume (CTV)-to-planning target volume (PTV) margins for three different setup strategies used during prostate irradiation: (1) no setup corrections, (2) on-line corrections determined from bony anatomy, and (3) on-line corrections determined from gold markers. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Three radiation oncologists independently delineated the CTV on computed tomography images of 30 prostate cancerpatients. Eight repeat scans were acquired to allow simulation of the delivered dose distributions in changing geometry. Different registration approaches were taken to mimic the different setup strategies. A surface model-based deformable image registration system was used to warp the delivered dose distributions back to the dose in the planning computed tomography scan. On the basis of the geometric extent of the underdosed areas, a set of anisotropic margins was derived to ensure a minimal dose to the CTV of 95% for 90% of the patients. RESULTS: Without setup correction, margins of approximately 11 mm for the corpus of the prostate and 15 mm for the seminal vesicles were required. These margins could be reduced to 8 and 13 mm when aligning the patient to the bony anatomy and to 3 and 8 mm aligning the patient to implanted gold markers. A larger margin at the apex was required to account for the significant observer variability and steep dose gradients at this location (11 mm using skin marker registration, 9 mm using bony anatomy registration, and 6 mm using gold marker registration). CONCLUSIONS: Novel voxel tracking techniques have enabled us to calculate accumulated dose distributions and design accurate three-dimensional CTV-to-PTV margins for prostate irradiation.
Authors: X J Juan-Senabre; J López-Tarjuelo; A Conde-Moreno; A Santos-Serra; A L Sánchez-Iglesias; J D Quirós-Higueras; N de Marco Blancas; S Calzada-Feliu; C Ferrer-Albiach Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Luis A Pérez-Romasanta; Eva Lozano-Martín; Joaquín Velasco-Jiménez; Fermín Mendicote-León; Miguel Sanz-Martín; Javier Torres-Donaire; Carmen Carrascosa-Fernández; Juan Carlos Zapata-Jimínez; Jacinto Arjona-Gutiérrez; Antonio Gil-Agudo Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: David Skarsgard; Pat Cadman; Ali El-Gayed; Robert Pearcey; Patricia Tai; Nadeem Pervez; Jackson Wu Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Berardino De Bari; Filippo Alongi; Pierfrancesco Franco; Patrizia Ciammella; Tarik Chekrine; Lorenzo Livi; Barbara A Jereczek-Fossa; Andrea Riccardo Filippi Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2013-05-27 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Johanne Hermesse; Sylvie Biver; Nicolas Jansen; Eric Lenaerts; Nathalie De Patoul; Stefaan Vynckier; Philippe Coucke; Pierre Scalliet; Philippe Nickers Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: W H Greene; S Chelikani; K Purushothaman; J P S Knisely; Z Chen; X Papademetris; L H Staib; J S Duncan Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2009-07-16 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Irene M Lips; Uulke A van der Heide; Karin Haustermans; Emile N J T van Lin; Floris Pos; Stefan P G Franken; Alexis N T J Kotte; Carla H van Gils; Marco van Vulpen Journal: Trials Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 2.279